mark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies mutation ('add', 'import') but says nothing about side effects, whether changes are reversible, what file is modified, or permission requirements. The only behavioral detail (sha256 refusal) lives in the schema's args description, not here.

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?

Two compact sentences with the capability front-loaded and the action list trailing as supporting detail. No filler, though the action enumeration duplicates the schema enum.

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 multi-action tool with a nested free-form args object and no output schema, the description covers the broad purpose but leaves each action's required arguments to inference. It is minimally viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (action enum, args object) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the action values already enumerated in the schema and adds no per-action argument semantics.

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 resource ('Add or import markers and chapters') and enumerates the concrete actions the tool performs, so an agent knows exactly what domain it covers. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like edit or organize, which are generic names, but the marker/chapter scope is distinctive enough.

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 action list implies when each operation applies (e.g., import_srt_markers for subtitle files, import_beat_markers for beat analysis), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over edit or organize, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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