cursor_to_track_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the cursor movement and the specific destination, but it does not comment on side effects, selection changes, undo behavior, or what happens when a track has no clips. For a simple navigation command this is adequate though not exhaustive.

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: a clear action sentence followed by a compact parameter explanation. Every word earns its place, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 navigation tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential behavior and parameter provenance. It could additionally mention behavior for invalid track IDs or tracks without clips, but those are edge cases rather than blockers for correct invocation.

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 schema only provides the parameter name and integer type; the description adds real meaning by explaining that track_id comes from project_get_info's track list. This tells the agent how to obtain a valid value, which is valuable given 0% schema description coverage.

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 verb ('Move'), a precise target ('the start of a track's earliest clip'), and identifies the resource via track_id. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cursor_to_track_end, cursor_to_project_start, and cursor_set.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the cursor positioned at a track's earliest clip. It also tells where to get track_id ('from project_get_info's track list'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative cursor-navigation tools or state when not to use it.

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