cursor_set

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the state change (moving both the playback cursor and edit point) and the time unit, which is the core behavior. It does not, however, mention side effects, bounds/clamping, or return behavior; acceptable for a simple navigation command but not rich.

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 two short sentences plus a minimal Args line. It front-loads the action and resource, then gives the only necessary parameter detail. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 one-parameter positional navigation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the core action and parameter semantics. It omits any indication of return value, failure behavior for invalid times, or relationship to the existing cursor_to_* siblings, leaving minor but real gaps.

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 only exposes 'time' as a bare number, while the description adds the essential meaning: 'Position in seconds'. This resolves the likely ambiguity between samples, frames, and seconds and fully documents the single parameter.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Move'), names the target resource ('playback cursor / edit point'), and clearly specifies the destination ('specific time'). This distinguishes it from sibling cursor_to_* tools that target preset positions such as project start/end or track boundaries.

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 phrase 'specific time' communicates the intended use case: arbitrary-position cursor movement rather than a named boundary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent choosing between this and cursor_to_project_start or cursor_to_track_start.

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