add_warp_marker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects, whether the operation is reversible, requirements like warp enabled clips, or any impact on existing warp markers.

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 followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the action and includes no extraneous text, making it easy to scan.

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 description is adequate for a simple 4-parameter tool but lacks broader context such as when to use it (vs warp-related siblings), prerequisites, or whether it returns a value. It covers the core action and parameters but would benefit from more operational context.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: track_index, clip_index, beat_time, and the optional sample_time. It adds clarity by noting sample_time is auto-calculated if not provided, which goes beyond the schema's type/name info.

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 'Add a warp marker to an audio clip' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_warp_marker and get_warp_markers by naming the action and target.

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 such as set_clip_start_marker or set_clip_warp_mode. The description only states what it does without explaining the appropriate context or prerequisites.

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