import_beat_markers

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate that the tool modifies the FCPXML file, what happens to existing markers, how output_path defaults, or error conditions. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it omits essential context, making it too concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but here a single sentence is insufficient for full clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the workflow, dependencies, or expected outcome, leaving the agent to infer too much from the schema and tool name.

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 80% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameters like 'beats_path' or 'beat_filter'. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states the action ('Import beat markers') and the source ('external audio analysis (JSON format)'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'import_srt_markers' or 'add_marker'. However, it does not mention that it modifies an FCPXML file, which is inferred from the schema.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'snap_to_beats' or 'batch_add_markers'. The description does not offer any context for appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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