guide_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic placement action and parameter meanings. It does not mention whether the operation is additive, whether duplicate positions are allowed, whether a timeline must be open, or any side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a dense Args block. Every line contributes parameter details and there is no filler.

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 create-style tool with no annotations, the parameter documentation is sufficient and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, missing usage boundaries and behavioral caveats prevent it from being fully complete for an agent choosing among guide/marker siblings.

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%, yet the description covers all four parameters with useful semantics: 'position' is in seconds, 'label' is short, 'guide_type' lists the allowed values, and 'comment' is optional and longer. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties, though it could explain the practical distinction between guide_type values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Place a navigation guide marker along the timeline.' This clearly defines the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like guide_update, guide_remove, guide_list, and marker_add by specifying a 'guide 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?

No guidance is given about when to use guide_add versus related siblings such as guide_update, guide_remove, or marker_add. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and general wording.

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