live_clip_warp_markers

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it merely states 'inspect or edit' without clarifying side effects, destructive potential, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating. The agent cannot infer safety or transactional characteristics.

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 sentence, concise but potentially too brief given the tool's complexity. It uses active verbs and is front-loaded, but lacks structured details like bullet points or parameter groups that would improve scannability.

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?

There is no output schema and the description omits any return value information. It does not explain the effect of omitting optional parameters, nor does it clarify whether the tool performs a read operation when only 'ref' is provided. The description is incomplete for a tool with such a complex input structure.

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 8 parameters (1 required) and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description adds no value by explaining any parameter. Complex fields like 'add_markers', 'move_markers', and 'expected_set_signature' remain opaque, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 clearly identifies the resource (audio clip warp state and markers) and actions (inspect or edit). It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like live_clip_add_notes or live_clip_envelope, which focus on different aspects of clips.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The description lacks context about what scenarios are appropriate for inspecting vs. editing, or how it relates to other clip manipulation tools.

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