add-markers-bulk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool adds multiple markers and supports both layer and composition types, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether markers are appended or replace existing ones, how errors are handled, or any side effects. With no annotation support, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and enriched with a concrete use case. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise while still providing purpose and context.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, nested markers array) and rich schema, the description provides sufficient context for typical use. It covers what the tool does and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the description does not need to cover return values unless required. It lacks details on edge cases like partial failures or atomicity, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, except for the contextual reference to analyze-audio-waveform, which implies the markers array likely comes from detected peaks. This is minimal extra value; the schema already describes all parameters well.

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 with a specific verb and resource: "Add multiple layer or composition markers at once." It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool add-marker by emphasizing the 'multiple' and 'at once' aspect, making it unambiguous which tool to use for bulk operations.

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 explicit usage context: "Use this after analyze-audio-waveform to place markers at detected peaks, or to add any set of markers in a single call." This clearly indicates when to use the tool versus alternatives, though it does not explicitly name the single-marker sibling or state 'do not use for single markers.' The guidance is strong but slightly implicit regarding exclusions.

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