update_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 'Updates an existing marker's properties' without revealing side effects (e.g., whether it's a partial update), required permissions, or error behavior when the marker doesn't exist.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no irrelevant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it lacks detail that other dimensions penalize.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention prerequisites like the marker existing or the sequence being open, nor does it clarify that only supplied properties are updated. This makes it incomplete for an agent to safely rely on.

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?

The input schema already covers all five parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter interactions, such as the fact that optional fields like name, color, and comment are only updated if provided. It relies entirely on the schema.

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 the tool updates existing markers, using the specific verb 'updates' and identifying the resource as 'an existing marker's properties.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_marker and delete_marker, which create or remove markers.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_marker or list_markers. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving usage context entirely ambiguous.

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