mark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool adds/imports markers and chapters and lists the action names, which conveys basic mutating behavior. But it does not disclose side effects, whether existing markers are modified, prerequisites, or what happens after an import or snap operation.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact action list. It is easy to skim, though the action list largely duplicates the schema's enum and adds little new 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?

This is a dispatch-style tool with six distinct actions and a nested args object, yet the description only names the actions and does not explain per-action arguments, expected inputs, or return behavior. An agent could not confidently call the correct action with correct arguments based solely on this definition.

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 high at 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter explanations in the description. The description adds source-type context for actions like SRT/VTT and transcript imports, but it does not explain what arguments each action requires beyond the generic filepath example in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb + resource ('Add or import markers and chapters') and enumerates the supported source types and action names. It is clearly a marker/chapter tool, so it is distinguishable from siblings like 'transcript' and 'edit', though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 implies usage contexts via 'including from SRT/VTT subtitles, transcripts, and beat analysis', and the action list hints at the available operations. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over an alternative, nor when one action should be used instead of another.

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