edit_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not state permissions, reversibility, side effects, error behavior, or how name clashes are resolved beyond what the schema already says about the region parameter.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with two compact examples. Every element earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with eight parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the article of the operations but omits critical behavioral context such as conflict resolution, required permissions, and side effects.

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 63%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps actions (rename, move, resize, recolor) to parameters like new_name, start_bar/end_bar, and color, but leaves end_beat, new_name, and start_beat without added meaning.

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?

States specific verbs (renames, moves, resizes, recolors) and the target resource (marker or region), with examples that make the scope unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_marker and delete_marker.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_marker, delete_marker, or edit_item. The examples illustrate capabilities but do not establish when this tool is the right choice.

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