Add a timeline marker at a specified frame for animation notes or bind a camera to it.
Add a timeline marker for animation notes or camera binding.
Args: name: Marker name. frame: Frame number for the marker. camera_name: Camera to bind to this marker (optional).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Marker | |
| frame | No | ||
| camera_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that camera binding is possible but does not clarify side effects such as whether binding changes existing camera behavior, whether markers are additive, or whether existing markers can be duplicated. Core add behavior is clear, but behavioral depth is thin.
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?
One purpose sentence plus a three-line Args list, with no filler and no repetition of schema defaults. The action is front-loaded and every line adds needed information.
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 three-parameter creation tool, the description documents purpose and all parameters, and the lack of an output schema lowers the need for return-value explanation. Gaps remain in usage routing and behavioral side effects, so it is adequate but not 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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the Args section carries full weight. It gives each parameter a semantic gloss: marker name, frame number, and optional camera binding. It does not explain frame indexing or units, but every parameter is usable from the description alone.
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?
Description opens with 'Add a timeline marker', a specific verb and resource, and adds its two use cases: animation notes or camera binding. The resource is unambiguous and pairs naturally with the sibling remove_marker, so an agent can distinguish add_marker from removal or navigation tools.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as remove_marker for deletion or go_to_frame for navigation, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.