pixera_apply_markers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the coordinate system (world-space), the flat x,y,z encoding, and critically that the write targets whatever marker calibration is currently open with no screen handle. It omits whether existing marker positions are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, and any error/ordering behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the API target. Slightly under-explained rather than verbose, which is the right failure mode, though the trailing 'no screen handle' note is confusing given the schema.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 3-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the missing marker_ids/positions correspondence rule and the unresolved screen_name parameter (the description says the API takes no screen handle, yet the schema offers one with a null default) leave a real gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains 'positions' as a flat x,y,z array, which is genuinely informative. However, 'marker_ids' semantics (e.g., that it is a parallel array whose length must match positions/3) and the role of 'screen_name' are left entirely unstated.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Push world-space markers') and names the underlying API (Pixera.Calibration.setMarkerPositions), which pins down exactly what operation occurs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from calibration siblings such as pixera_run_calibration or pixera_validate_marker_calibration.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives among the many calibration/marker siblings. The only implicit condition is that a marker calibration must already be open, but this is described as a constraint, not as usage guidance.

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