select_cursor_to_track_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burnden and it does accurately describe the state-changing behavior: it creates a selection from the current cursor position to the track's latest clip. It does not disclose side effects such as whether the previous selection is replaced or how edge cases like a cursor after the last clip are handled, but for a simple selection tool the core behavior is present.

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 compact: one operation sentence followed by the only argument's origin. No redundant words or schema boilerplate, and the most important information 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 selection action with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what the tool does and where to obtain track_id. It lacks usage guidance and some side-effect detail, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can mostly call it correctly from this description.

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. It does by explaining that track_id comes from project_get_info's track list, which gives the agent a concrete way to obtain a valid value. It does not add detailed format/range constraints, but it meaningfully goes beyond the bare integer type.

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 operation: select from the current cursor position to the end of a track's latest clip. It clearly identifies the resource and the selection range, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling selection/cursor tools like select_region or cursor_to_track_end.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many sibling selection and cursor tools, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. The operation is clear, but the agent receives no support in deciding between alternatives.

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