place_markers

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, and it does this well. It explicitly states that existing markers are not touched (non-destructive), explains that the result includes the activeSequence actually used, and warns that sequence switches mid-session can be detected. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent important runtime 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then provides precise, non-redundant details. Every sentence adds operational value: point/duration behavior, shared color, naming convention, non-destructive behavior, and the activeSequence return field. There is no fluff or unnecessary repetition of the schema.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers side effects, parameter semantics, naming, and a key return field. It does not describe the full response shape or relationship to sibling tools like add_marker, but what is present is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates by explaining startSec as required, endSec as the point-vs-duration switch, and colorName as shared across the batch. It also adds the naming convention for the name parameter. The comment parameter is not discussed in the description, but the schema already describes it, so the coverage is adequate.

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 a specific action ('Add markers to the active sequence') and specifies the resource (active sequence). It also details the point vs. duration marker distinction, which makes the purpose precise. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'add_marker', so some differentiation is left implicit.

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 clear usage context: markers are added non-destructively, all markers in one call share a color, and endSec behavior is specified. It also provides the Scout namespace convention so other tools can find markers later. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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