add_marker

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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=false, so the description adds useful context such as position units ('seconds'), color default ('0 = default'), and the returned marker index. However, it does not disclose side effects of adding a marker beyond the creation itself, such as index assignment, ordering, or whether existing markers can be overwritten.

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 compact and well-structured with a one-line summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant schema 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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all parameters and the return value, which is essential. The main gap is the absence of any relationship or usage contrast with the many marker-related sibling tools, but the core operational details are present.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining position units ('Position in seconds'), name purpose, color meaning ('0 = default'), and the return value. This is meaningfully richer than the raw schema, though it does not clarify color value ranges or name constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('a marker'), and location ('at a position'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_marker, go_to_marker, and add_region by specifying marker creation with position, name, and color.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent can infer it is for creating markers, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to related tools such as add_region or get_markers.

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