add_composition_marker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining side effects, required parameters, whether it modifies the composition, or any safety considerations. This is as thin as the 'Process' example and offers no transparency beyond the bare action.

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 very concise (one short sentence), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It doesn't earn its place because it provides insufficient information to guide correct invocation, similar to the 'Process' example but slightly more grammatical.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many ambiguous fields (url, compId, frameTarget, cuePointName). The description is far too minimal to be complete for such a complex tool, failing to address any of the contextual gaps.

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 only 11% (only 'time' is described), yet the description does not explain any parameters such as compId, compName, url, chapter, comment, duration, frameTarget, or cuePointName. The description adds no meaning to the input schema and fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Add a marker to a composition' clearly states the action (add) and the target (a marker to a composition). It is specific enough to understand the basic function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'add_layer_marker', which also adds markers but to layers.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_layer_marker. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving agents to infer usage solely from the minimal action phrase.

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