move_playhead_to_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the playhead moves 'to edit,' without stating whether that means the next edit point, a previous one, or an edit under the playhead, and without clarifying whether anything else in the timeline changes or whether the action is reversible.

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 short, but most of its content is either fluff ('Premiere Pro expanded operation') or a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name. This is under-specification rather than efficient specification, and the sentence does not earn its place with new information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of context, yet it leaves core ambiguity unresolved: what counts as an 'edit,' and how does this tool differ from set_playhead_position? The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in varying timeline states.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings the description needs to add. With 0 parameters and full schema coverage, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 begins with boilerplate 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' and then restates the tool name almost verbatim. The term 'edit' is never defined as an edit point, so the actual target of the operation remains unclear and is not differentiated from siblings like set_playhead_position or get_next_edit_point.

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 about when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent has no help deciding between this and related playhead/edit-point tools.

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