create_locator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic action and parameters, without mentioning side effects, validation rules, return values, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a create operation, this leaves significant gaps about what actually happens.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action plus two bullet points for parameters. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter create tool, the description covers the essentials: what it does and the meanings of parameters. However, it lacks usage context (when to use vs. alternatives), behavioral details (e.g., whether name is optional, happens if time is out of range), and any note about success/return. It is adequate but not complete given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'time' is 'Position in beats' and 'name' is 'Name for the locator.' The schema only names the fields without descriptions (coverage 0%), so this is valuable. It does not specify units for time beyond beats, which is clarified, and the semantics for name are basic but clear.

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's function: 'Create a new locator/cue point.' The verb 'create' and the resource 'locator/cue point' are specific and naturally distinguish it from siblings like get_locators and delete_locator. The parameter list reinforces the purpose.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to add a new locator. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., get_locators to list, delete_locator to remove) or mention any prerequisites like an open session. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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