fmod_MarkerTrack_addNamedMarker

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value (ManagedObject) but does not discuss side effects, permissions, error handling, or preconditions (e.g., existing marker track).

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 concise sentences; first sentence states the action and context, second states the return. No wasted words. Includes method reference for developers.

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 simplicity, input schema covers parameters, and no output schema exists, the description is largely complete. However, it could explicitly state that target must be a MarkerTrack object and clarify behavior for duplicate names.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'at the given position', which is inferred from the 'position' 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 action ('Adds a destination marker') and the resource ('to the marker track at the given position'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'addTransitionMarker' by specifying 'destination marker'.

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 (add destination marker) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., addRegion, addTransitionMarker). No when-not-to or context provided.

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