transport_set_cursor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies this as affecting the 'playback cursor' but omits critical details such as whether this stops active playback, what happens if the time exceeds project bounds, or whether the change is instantaneous.

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 extremely concise with no filler content. The single-sentence purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by a brief Args section. While the 'Args:' formatting is slightly unconventional for MCP descriptions, it efficiently conveys the necessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description meets minimum viability by explaining the basic function and parameter unit. However, it falls short of completeness due to the unresolved ambiguity with sibling cursor tools and lack of behavioral constraints for the transport system.

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, the description compensates by specifying the unit for the 'time' parameter (seconds), which is essential information absent from the schema. However, it lacks additional context such as valid ranges, whether negative values are accepted, or if the value is absolute versus relative.

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 specific action (Set) and target (playback cursor position), providing immediate understanding of the tool's function. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool `cursor_set_position`, leaving ambiguity about which cursor control tool to use.

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_set_position` or `cursor_to_project_start`. There are no prerequisites, constraints, or workflow context provided.

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