add-markers-bulk

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it appends or replaces existing markers), error handling, or permission requirements. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. The key verb ('add') and object ('markers') are front-loaded, and the use case is efficiently stated.

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?

While the input schema is rich and covers parameters fully, the description lacks information about return values, potential failure modes, or limits on marker count. It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for robust agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at integration with 'analyze-audio-waveform' output. It does not elaborate on parameter semantics further.

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 explicitly states 'Add multiple layer or composition markers at once,' which clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add-marker' by emphasizing bulk addition. It also provides a specific use case ('after analyze-audio-waveform'), enhancing clarity.

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 advises using this tool after 'analyze-audio-waveform' or for any set of markers, giving clear context. It implies the alternative for single markers is 'add-marker,' but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or state when not to use.

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