set_playhead_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the state change and does not mention preconditions like an active sequence or valid time range, nor does it describe side effects, clamping, or error behavior. This is a bare functional statement rather than transparent behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It defines the technical term CTI in passing and immediately conveys the core operation.

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 two-parameter tool, the schema covers the argument meanings and the description states the core effect. However, with no annotations and no mention of preconditions or related tool usage, it is only minimally viable for an agent operating in an already active sequence.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, such as whether the time is absolute or relative, or what happens when the time is outside the sequence duration.

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 states the action ('Sets'), the resource ('playhead (CTI) position'), and the scope ('in the specified sequence'). It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like move_playhead_to_edit or get_playhead_position, relying on the verb and parameter names to imply the distinction.

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 move_playhead_to_edit or set_zero_point. The intended usage must be inferred from the name and parameters rather than stated explicitly.

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