ecamm_add_marker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the target (current session); it doesn't say whether the marker is persisted to the recording, timestamped relative to start, timed out of an edit list, or what occurs on failure.

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?

One clean sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here edges into under-specification rather than tightness.

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 one-optional-param write tool with annotations and no output schema, the bar is modest, but the definition still leaves the agent guessing about the sole parameter and about the session precondition. It is not yet complete enough to call confidently.

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 coverage is 0% for the single `text` parameter, so the description carries the full burden and fails to mention it. It never says what `text` labels, nor that it is optional — implying markers can be dropped with no label at all.

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 names a specific action and resource — 'drop a chapter/edit marker' — and scopes it to 'the current recording or broadcast.' An agent can tell this apart from the state-mutating siblings like ecamm_set_* or ecamm_toggle, though it doesn't explicitly name a contrast case.

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 phrase 'in the current recording or broadcast' is a scope statement, not usage guidance. Nothing says when to prefer this over other session actions, whether a recording/broadcast must already be active, or what happens if none is running.

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