transport_jog

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the operation type (relative move), the unit, and the sign convention for direction. It does not mention boundary behavior or effects on playback state, but for a simple nudge command the core behavior is well covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Nudge playhead') and then packs the essential unit and direction details into the remainder.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter transport tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It provides the action, unit, and direction; the only minor gap is unspecified behavior at song boundaries or during playback, which is unlikely to be essential for invoking this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only provides an integer titled 'Steps' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that 'steps' are measured in 16th-notes and that negative values move backward, giving the agent complete parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Nudge'), a clear resource ('playhead'), a precise unit ('16th-notes'), and the direction semantics ('negative = backward'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like transport_set_position, which implies absolute positioning, and transport_play/stop.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The verb 'nudge' and the relative unit '16th-notes' make the usage context clear: use this for relative playhead adjustments rather than absolute seeks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which would make it a 5, but the relative-vs-absolute distinction is strongly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.