create_section_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the conversion from bars to beats using the time signature, the placement mechanism (via set_locator), and the convention that Bar 1 is beat 0. However, it does not discuss whether existing locators are overwritten, duplicate-name handling, or any error conditions, which limits transparency.

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 efficient: it front-loads the purpose, then explains the conversion and parameter format. The parameter details are necessary given the loose schema, and the example is helpful. It could be slightly more compact, but every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for correct invocation: the input structure, conversion logic, and starting-point convention. It does not explicitly mention error cases or return values, but for this tool that is not critical, making it nearly complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining the sections parameter as a list of {'name': str, 'bar': int} dicts with a concrete example. It also clarifies the meaning of bar numbers relative to the arrangement, and explains user_prompt as telemetry, which is essential for correct usage.

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: 'Create a set of arrangement locators from a song structure, given in bars.' It identifies the specific resource (arrangement locators) and implies a batch operation, distinguishing it from the singular set_locator sibling. The use of 'set_locator' internally clarifies its relationship.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating multiple locators from a song structure in bars). It does not explicitly compare with set_locator or state when not to use it, but the mention of 'a set' and 'via set_locator' implies this is a higher-level convenience, offering enough guidance for selection.

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