add_marker_to_project_item

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, return values, error conditions, or permissions. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency increases the risk of misuse.

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 sentence, front-loading the action. While concise, it sacrifices detail that could improve clarity. Every word earns its place, but the brevity limits completeness.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success marker ID) or how it behaves with duplicate markers. The complexity warrants more contextual information to ensure correct invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting; the description does not clarify parameter relationships or constraints beyond 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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'marker to a project item (source clip marker)', distinguishing it from the sibling 'add_marker' which likely targets sequence markers. This unambiguous purpose aids the agent in selecting the correct tool.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_marker' or 'update_marker', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This omission forces the agent to rely on trial and error.

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