set_clip_end_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 only states the basic action and units, but does not mention potential side effects, constraints on position relative to the start marker, validation behavior, or index conventions. This is too minimal for full transparency.

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 text is exceptionally concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant 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?

For a simple setter with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter meanings. However, it omits important context like the zero-based index convention and whether position must be after the start marker. This is adequate but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does list all three parameters with brief explanations, including the unit 'beats' for position. However, it lacks detail such as whether indices are zero-based, range limitations, or relationships between parameters, so it only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set a clip's end marker, in beats.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_clip_start_marker and set_clip_fade_out, and the unit of measurement is stated upfront.

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. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen over set_clip_start_marker or other clip-editing tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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