set_arrangement_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core side effect (moving the playhead) and mentions the return value includes a write confirmation and read-back time, which adds transparency beyond just 'set'. However, it does not disclose whether the operation affects playback state, whether fractional beats are accepted, or what happens if the target beat is invalid.

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?

The description is concise and well structured: an action sentence followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no repetition or filler. The core behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the input semantics and the type of return value, and the output schema covers the return structure. It lacks only optional behavioral context such as bounds or playback interaction, which is a minor gap for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the parameter explanation in the description is essential. The description defines 'at_beat' as 'Target song time in beats from timeline start', giving the unit (beats), the reference point (timeline start), and the intended meaning. This fully compensates for the bare schema property name 'At Beat'.

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?

The description clearly states the action: move the Arrangement playhead to a beat position and return a read-back position. It names a specific resource and operation, so an agent understands the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'arrange' or 'set_locator', which could overlap in function.

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 description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as 'set_locator', 'arrange', and 'set_loop' exist, but no conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios are provided. An agent must infer usage context from the name alone.

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