add-marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses what fields a marker can include but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing markers), requirements (composition must exist), or any behavioral nuances beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a short fragment—immediately conveying the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description lacks any mention of return values, prerequisites (e.g., compIndex must refer to an existing composition), or error conditions. Given the 10 parameters and no output schema, this omission leaves the agent underinformed about what to expect after invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds context by listing the marker fields (comment, label, etc.), but this adds only marginal value beyond the per-parameter schema descriptions.

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's action ('Add a marker') and target ('to a layer or composition'), specifying the key fields (comment, label color, etc.). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add-markers-bulk' by focusing on a single marker.

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 use for adding a single marker at a specified time but does not explicitly state when to use this over 'add-markers-bulk' or other alternatives. No when-not-to guidance is provided.

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