update_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the update operation and the non-active sequence constraint, but does not disclose side effects, whether the update is reversible, or any permission requirements. It adds some context but lacks depth.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to parse.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It covers the core update action and the non-active sequence nuance, but does not explain return values or error conditions. It is sufficient for a simple update tool but could be more complete.

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 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does clarify that the sequence does not need to be active, which relates to sequenceId. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool updates an existing marker's properties in a specified sequence, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_marker, delete_marker, and list_markers by focusing on updating existing markers.

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 mentions the sequence does not have to be the active one, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_marker or list_markers, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions.

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