cursor_set_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully adds the unit context ('seconds') which is critical behavioral information not in the schema. However, it lacks disclosure about safety (though implied non-destructive), valid ranges, or interaction with the transport state.

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 efficiently structured with the action statement first, followed by an Args section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.

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 low complexity (single required parameter, no output schema, simple operation), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the parameter unit and the core action, which is adequate for a cursor positioning tool, though edge case behavior (e.g., negative values) is not specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (schema only provides 'title': 'Time' and type), the description compensates by documenting the unit ('Position in seconds'). This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it could additionally specify valid ranges or constraints.

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 'Move the cursor to a specific time position', providing a specific verb (Move) and resource (cursor). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like cursor_to_project_end by emphasizing 'specific time position' rather than predefined locations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from transport_set_cursor.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cursor_to_project_end, cursor_to_track_start, or transport_set_cursor. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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