add-marker

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'Add a marker' (a write operation) and lists optional properties, but does not disclose behavior like overwriting existing markers, prerequisites, or side effects. Basic transparency is present.

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 sentences: first states the core action, second lists optional properties. No redundant information. Front-loaded with key action, concise and efficient.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is functional but could be more complete. It does not explain the difference between layer and comp markers, which is critical for correct usage. With many sibling tools, more context would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists optional properties (comment, label, chapter, URL, duration) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify the difference between layer and comp markers or the relationship between layerName and layerIndex.

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 'Add a marker to a layer or composition at a specified time' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'add-markers-bulk' by implying single marker addition. The optional properties are listed, making the purpose specific.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use for single marker addition, but given sibling 'add-markers-bulk', explicit comparison would help. Context is implied but not clearly stated.

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