playlist_add_markers

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation requires write mode, that the receipt validates names but reports times as unverified due to a FL/PostFader read limitation, and that the project is not saved. These are non-obvious operational traits (persistence, verification semantics) that annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then precondition, then verification and persistence caveats. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no 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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description adds the necessary caveats (write-mode gating, unverified times, no auto-save) an agent needs to invoke and interpret results correctly. Nothing material is missing for a single-parameter mutation 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 description coverage is 100% and the single nested marker structure (name, bar_number, beat_offset) is fully documented in the schema, so the description's brief mention of markers adds little. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter detail.

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 a specific verb (Add) plus resource and scope (named section markers to the Playlist timeline) and gives concrete examples (Intro, Verse, Drop). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like playlist_list_tracks or playlist_get_selection without opening a schema.

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 'Requires write mode' precondition tells the agent a gating session state must be set first (e.g. via session_set_write_mode), which is clear context. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it does not reach the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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