Add a section marker at a bar

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). Description adds that the marker is named and placed at a bar, but does not discuss side effects like overwriting existing markers, visual impact, or undo behavior. With annotations covering some transparency, the description provides moderate additional context.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence that contains all essential information with no wasted words. Perfectly concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, clear annotations, output schema exists), the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose and parameter usage. Minor omission: no mention of whether the marker is placed in the arrangement view specifically, though implied by tool prefix. Still, completeness is good for a straightforward tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds examples (e.g., 'Verse') and context ('timeline marker'), but no novel constraints or formatting rules beyond the schema. At high coverage, baseline is 3.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Add'), resource ('named timeline marker'), and placement ('at a bar'), with examples like intro/verse/chorus/drop. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on playback, routing, or other arrangement 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., manual insertion). Usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of prerequisites, conflicts, or when not to use it.

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