set_media_input_cursor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently states 'No bounds checking,' which warns that invalid positions may not be caught. This is a valuable behavioral trait, though it does not describe return values or error handling in detail.

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 the core action in the first sentence and the key caveat in the second. The parameter list is logically placed and tightly written. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 simple seek operation, the description covers the action and parameters, but does not mention return value, failure modes, or prerequisites (e.g., that the input must be a media input). The 'No bounds checking' hint is useful, but without annotations or output schema, the description could be more complete.

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 provides no descriptions for the two parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates fully with an 'Args' section that explains both `input_name` and `cursor_ms` clearly, including the unit for cursor_ms (milliseconds). This goes beyond the structured schema, which only lists types and titles.

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 specifies a seek operation to an absolute position on a media source, with a distinctive caveat about bounds checking. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'offset_media_input_cursor' by emphasizing absolute positioning, making its purpose clear and non-overlapping.

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 gives context that this is for absolute seeking, which implies that relative seeking would use the offset sibling, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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