add-marker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions marker features (comment, label color, etc.) but does not disclose side effects, defaults (e.g., markerType defaults to 'layer'), or potential failure modes. The mutation aspect is implied but not elaborated, which is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds relevant detail about marker capabilities without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to target a layer (layerName vs layerIndex), the need for compIndex, or the distinction between layer and comp markers. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the description fails to provide the higher-level context needed for correct tool selection and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists some parameters (comment, label, chapter, URL, duration) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It provides a high-level summary without extra detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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: 'Add a marker to a layer or composition at a specified time.' It identifies the verb (add), resource (marker), and scope (layer/composition). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'add-markers-bulk', but the singular wording implies single-marker use, so it is mostly clear.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'add-markers-bulk', or when to choose layer markers vs composition markers. The description implies usage but offers no explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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