add_project_item_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that a marker is added and does not disclose mutation side effects, permission requirements, duplicate-marker behavior, persistence, or what a successful call returns.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The important scope clarification is placed immediately after the core action.

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 add-marker operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough scope for correct invocation. The main missing context is behavioral rather than structural, which is already reflected in the behavioral transparency score.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including name, time, color, nodeId, and comment. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Add a marker to a project item') and immediately clarifies scope with '(source clip, not timeline)'. This lets an agent distinguish it from timeline marker siblings such as add_marker and add_clip_marker without opening schemas.

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?

It gives clear context by specifying source clip usage and explicitly excludes timeline markers. However, it does not name the alternative tool to use for timeline markers, so it falls short of full when-to-use/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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