record_marker_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait — that the marker is staged and only becomes a comment via record_land_tool — but says nothing about permissions, what happens if no take is open, or the default 'Marker' body.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the sibling relationship second; compact with no filler. It is terse to the point of being cryptic, but every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the sibling handoff is covered. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves the two parameters and the required session precondition unaddressed.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it mentions neither 'body' (the default 'Marker' text) nor 'project_path'. The two parameters are effectively undocumented for the agent.

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?

It names a specific action and object ('stamp the open take now') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling record_land_tool, which lands the marker as a comment. An agent can distinguish it from that sibling, though 'Host Marker' jargon is opaque to anyone unfamiliar with the workflow.

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 tells the agent this is the immediate stamping step and that record_land_tool is the follow-up that converts it into a comment, which is clear usage context. It stops short of stating prerequisites (a take must be open/recording) or when not to use it, so no explicit exclusions.

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