import_beat_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not explain whether the tool modifies the timeline in place, creates a new file (implied by output_path), or replaces existing markers. Side effects and permission requirements are omitted.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant or wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded. It could include a bit more context without losing conciseness, but it already efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 five parameters, two required, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the expected JSON format, how beat_filter affects the import, or that the output_path parameter creates a new file. The tool's context (importing external data) demands more detail for correct usage.

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%, and the input schema already documents parameters with descriptions and enums. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It neither clarifies parameter usage nor provides examples, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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), the resource (beat markers), and the source (external audio analysis JSON format). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_marker or batch_add_markers by specifying the data origin and format.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add_marker, import_srt_markers). It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The implied context (external audio analysis) is insufficient for an agent to decide.

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