add_marker_to_project_item

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions it is an 'expanded operation' but does not explain what 'expanded' means—does it add more marker types? Does it have side effects on the project? Does it require the project to be open? No behavioral details are given beyond the basic action, leaving the agent with little understanding of the tool's effects or requirements.

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, very brief and to the point. However, it includes the unnecessary word 'expanded' which lacks clarity, and it doesn't fully utilize the space to provide useful context. It is concise but not optimally structured for informative content.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is almost minimal. It provides the basic purpose but lacks any details on what the operation entails, such as whether the marker is added to the item's marker list, if it affects the timeline, or what the result looks like. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should at least indicate what 'expanded' means. It's adequate but not complete enough to fully inform the agent.

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 zero parameters (0 count, 0 required), and the description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to cover). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not add anything that contradicts that. The description's mention of 'expanded operation' is vague but does not detract, so the parameter semantics are effectively neutral as there are no parameters to explain.

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 the specific action ('add marker') and the target resource ('project item'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_marker' and 'add_marker_to_sequence' (though the latter isn't in the list, it's clear from the name). The verb 'add' is specific and the resource 'project item' is unambiguous, making the purpose highly clear.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool name itself clearly indicates the target (project item), and the presence of sibling tools like 'add_marker' and 'add_marker_to_sequence' implies a context where this tool is for adding markers to project items specifically. Still, without explicit exclusions or alternative references, the usage guidance is only implied.

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