add_warp_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that sample_time is optional and calculated automatically if omitted, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether existing markers are affected), requirements like warp mode, or error behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clean parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler 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?

Given the tool's mutating nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters but omits key context such as whether the clip must be an audio clip (already implied), what happens to existing warp markers, and any error conditions. An agent would lack the information to safely invoke this tool in real scenarios.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter, with the most useful being sample_time ('calculated automatically if not provided'). However, track_index and clip_index are defined tautologically ('The index of the track/clip slot'), adding minimal value beyond the 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 states a specific action ('Add a warp marker') and a clear resource ('an audio clip'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_warp_markers and delete_warp_marker, which perform different operations on the same resource.

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, prerequisites (e.g., whether the clip must be warped), or alternatives. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling tool names.

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