cursor_to_track_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the cursor is moved to the end of a track's latest clip, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., empty track, multiple clips, invalid track_id) or whether selection/playhead state is affected. This is adequate but minimal.

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 with the action stated first and the parameter guidance second. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the parameter provenance. Minor gaps remain around what qualifies as the 'latest clip' and what happens when a track has no clips, but the description is nearly complete for this simplicity level.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the sole parameter. It does so by explaining that track_id is the track's id from project_get_info's track list, providing the key semantic context missing from the schema. It could add error-handling detail, but for a single parameter this is strong.

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 a specific action ('Move the cursor') and a specific target ('the end of a track's latest clip'), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is distinguishable from siblings like cursor_to_track_start, though it does not explicitly name alternatives and could define 'latest clip' more precisely.

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?

It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared with siblings such as cursor_set or cursor_to_track_start. However, it does tell the agent where track_id comes from ('project_get_info's track list'), which is useful operational context for invoking the tool correctly.

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