import_transcript_markers

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether markers are appended or replaced, error handling, or side effects on the FCPXML file. Only the input format is mentioned.

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 sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb 'Import' and key details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too terse. It omits return value, side effects, and behavior for optional parameters like transcript_path. Not complete enough for safe invocation.

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 80% description coverage, and the description adds value by providing concrete format examples ('0:00 Title') and mentioning YouTube chapter format. This clarifies the expected input beyond the schema's type descriptions.

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 tool imports a timestamped transcript as markers, specifying the YouTube chapter format. It differentiates from siblings like add_marker (single marker) and import_srt_markers (SRT format) by focusing on timestamped text formats.

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 for YouTube chapter timestamps but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like batch_add_markers or import_beat_markers. No guidance on preconditions or when not to use it.

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