label_add_batch

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important atomicity behavior: every item is validated before anything is sent to Audacity, so a bad item fails the whole call rather than leaving a half-written list. It also explains the default behavior for the optional end parameter. It does not mention undo behavior, permissions, or return values, but the disclosed validation behavior is substantive.

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 well front-loaded with the batch purpose, then gives the exact item structure and the atomic validation behavior. The Args line somewhat repeats the item shape already explained above, but the repetition is concise and the overall length is reasonable with no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter batch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parameter format, defaults, and the critical failure behavior. It does not describe the success return value or broader side effects, but those are less critical for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool.

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 provides zero description coverage for the labels parameter, but the description fully documents the item shape: {'start': seconds, 'end': optional and defaults to start, 'text': optional}. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Add many labels at once — a whole marker list in one call.' It clearly distinguishes this batch tool from a singular label tool like label_add by emphasizing the batch/many nature and the marker list 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 clearly implies this tool should be used when adding multiple labels in one operation ('a whole marker list in one call'), which is a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the batch focus is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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