ae_add_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that markers can be added to comp or layer, and labels are optional, but does not mention side effects like whether markers overwrite existing ones or if duplicates are allowed. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action and context. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the main functionality well. It explains placement options and optional labels. However, it lacks details on return behavior (likely void) and error handling for invalid times. For a simple tool, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for 'times' (seconds), 'labels' (parallel to times), and 'layer' (if given, add layer markers). However, the 'comp' parameter lacks description in both schema and description, so it remains unclear how to specify the composition.

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 tool adds markers at given times on the comp timeline or a specific layer, with optional labels. It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('markers'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like ae_add_effect which add different entities.

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 for beat/section sync or layer markers, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling list shows no other marker-specific tool, so no confusion.

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