set_locator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it delivers. It clearly states that the operation toggles via song.set_or_delete_cue, can either add or delete a locator, requires confirmation, and reports current positions when confirmation fails. This is unusually transparent for a potentially destructive operation.

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 compact and well-structured: the core action appears first, followed by the critical confirmation caveat, then parameter details and return behavior. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what the tool does, its toggling behavior, the confirmation requirement, argument semantics, and return format. The only minor gap is explicit sibling-tool differentiation, but the operation is self-contained and well-specified enough for correct invocation.

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 description must compensate, and it does. Each parameter receives an explanatory line: at_beat is a timeline position in beats, name is optional for the new locator, and confirm is a required flag for execution. The explanations are correct but somewhat brief; for example, the description could clarify whether at_beat accepts fractional values or how missing names behave, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 tool's verb and resource: 'Place or remove an Arrangement cue locator.' It also explains the underlying toggle behavior, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the operation is specific enough that an agent can understand what it does.

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 the confirmation semantics ('Requires confirm=True') and what happens when confirm=False, which guides correct invocation. It does not, however, discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_arrangement_time or other arrangement-related tools. Usage context for the tool itself is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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