arrangement_add_section_markers

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds a useful behavioral limitation not in the annotations: name readback works, marker-time readback does not. This goes beyond the structured data and helps set expectations.

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, well-structured sentence front-loads the core action and then provides a concise, useful caveat. Every phrase earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety profile, but the definition lacks parameter semantics and usage context. It is adequate for a relatively simple add operation, yet the 0% schema description coverage means more burden falls on the description, which it only partially meets.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only mentions 'bar/beat' which vaguely maps to bar_number and beat_offset. It does not explain the marker object structure, constraints (max 32), or defaults, leaving the agent to infer semantics from field names alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('bar/beat section markers'), and the tool name disambiguates the arrangement context. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral note about readback capability, which helps separate it from any potential marker-related 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 when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance is provided. The readback caveat implies a condition ('use if you need name readback, not marker-time readback'), but there is no direct comparison to other tools or clear exclusions.

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