live_add_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits: the default position is the playhead, and the playhead is left unchanged (a side-effect boundary versus live_set_transport). It omits any permission/state requirements or error behavior for a mutation tool.

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 core action and the position semantics, then the side-effect note. No filler; appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single optional parameter, the description covers the critical call details: what it does, where, and the default position. Enough to invoke correctly, though a note on marker return/identity would round it out.

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 only one optional parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining that 'seconds' is a position and that it defaults to the playhead. This adds real meaning beyond the bare 'number' type in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Add a marker') with scope ('in the running Studio One'), so an agent can distinguish it from live_delete_marker and live_markers. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the add/list/delete distinction is clear enough.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and the mention of the playhead default.

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