add_clip_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the search and add mechanism but omits side effects (e.g., whether previous markers are overwritten, undo behavior, permissions required, or failure modes if clip not found or multiple clips match). This is a mutation action lacking safety context.

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 concise with a brief overview paragraph followed by an Arg list. It is well-structured and front-loads the action. Minor improvement: could combine redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Add a marker... then adds a marker'). Still efficient.

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 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameters well but lacks information on return values (output schema exists but not referenced), error conditions (clip not found, duplicate name), and prerequisites (timeline must be loaded, clip must exist). Some gaps remain for a fully informed agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by detailing each parameter in an Args section (e.g., 'Name of the clip on the timeline', 'Frame offset within the clip for the marker'). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying the role and format of each parameter.

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 adds a marker to a clip on the current timeline, specifies it searches all video tracks, and distinguishes from siblings like add_timeline_marker (timeline-level) and delete_clip_marker (opposite action). The verb 'add' and resource 'clip marker' are precise.

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 adding markers to specific clips but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions searching all video tracks, which suggests prerequisite (clip must exist), but no alternative tools are named. Sibling tools exist (add_timeline_marker, delete_clip_marker) but are not referenced.

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