add_layer_marker

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a marker', which implies a creation action, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., does it replace existing markers? Is it reversible? What happens if the time already has a marker?). The agent receives minimal transparency about behavior.

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 concise sentence, but it is overly terse and leaves critical gaps. While there is no wasted text, the structure fails to front-load essential details like parameter roles or usage context. Conciseness is not valuable if it sacrifices completeness.

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 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain return values, error states, or how the parameters interrelate. Compared to the many sibling tools, the agent cannot infer how to construct a valid call without external knowledge.

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%—none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any parameter meaning, such as the format of 'time' (seconds? frames?), the difference between 'compId' and 'compName', or whether 'duration' is optional. The agent has no semantic clues beyond 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 'Add a marker to a layer' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (marker on a layer), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_composition_marker' which targets composition-level markers. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 like 'set_keyframe' or 'add_composition_marker'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a composition must be open, layer must exist) or contexts that favor this tool. The description entirely lacks usage direction.

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