go_to_edit

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the playhead is the mutated state, but says nothing about what happens at the first/last edit point (wrap, clamp, or no-op), whether an active sequence is required, or whether the move is a no-op when no edit points exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the tool's whole purpose is stated in the first few words. It is terse rather than bloated, though it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool.

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 one-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the core action is covered. However, the boundary behavior at the start/end of the timeline and the implicit requirement for an active sequence are left unaddressed, which are the main things an agent could get wrong.

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%, but there is only one parameter and it is a two-value enum whose meaning is fully reflected in the description's 'next/previous'. No extra semantics (e.g. what counts as an edit point) are added beyond the enum itself.

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?

States a specific verb and target ('Move the playhead') plus the destination unit ('next/previous edit point'), which is distinct from the absolute positioning implied by the set_playhead sibling. It does not explicitly contrast itself with set_playhead or get_playhead, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to prefer this over set_playhead (absolute positioning) or when navigation is useful. The direction word hints at relative navigation but there is no context, no prerequisites (e.g. an active sequence must exist) and no exclusions.

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