playlist_add_marker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states the core action. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, duplicate behavior, what happens with an empty name, or any confirmation/return behavior.

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 text is extremely terse and front-loaded, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence omits important parameter context and does not meaningfully structure the usage.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It lacks information about playlist marker behavior, position units, naming, and interaction with sibling marker tools, leaving the agent to rely solely on the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither the required 'position_bars' nor the optional 'name'. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the agent must infer units and semantics from the parameter title.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Add a playlist marker.' This clearly distinguishes it at a high level from the many playlist_* sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from list or delete marker tools.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like playlist_delete_marker, playlist_list_markers, or arrangement_jump_marker. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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