set_current_song_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it writes transport state in a single undo step, that it internally verifies with set/read/retry, and that a stuck setter raises PLAYHEAD_NOT_MOVED after three attempts. It omits whether playback must be stopped, whether auth/permissions are needed, and what a success returns, but the side-effect and failure-mode disclosure is unusually strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then clearly partitioned into side effects, example, and edge cases. Every line earns its place; it is slightly longer than strictly necessary but not padded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers units, side effects, undo behavior, and a concrete failure mode. The main remaining gap is the absence of return-value or success-state detail, which is minor given no output schema exists.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'time' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. The example ('set_current_song_time(32.0) moves to beat thirty-two') successfully establishes that the value is in beats, adding meaning beyond the bare number type.

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 and resource ('Move the Arrangement playhead') that an agent can immediately distinguish from transport siblings like start_playback, stop_playback, and set_tempo. The example confirms the units ('32.0 moves to beat thirty-two'), removing ambiguity about what the target value represents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_playback or the locator tools. The example demonstrates how to call it but not when it is the right choice, and no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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