update_marker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutation and an important scope trait (operation on non-active sequences), but it does not cover error behavior, reversibility, or what happens when only sequenceId and markerId are provided without any property to update.

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 one tight sentence plus a meaningful clarifier. There is no filler, and the statement about non-active sequences earns its place.

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 simple update operation, the description plus fully-covered schema provides the essential invocation information: what to update, where to update it, and that the sequence need not be active. A minor gap is guidance on supplying at least one updatable property, since the schema permits calls with only sequenceId and markerId.

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%, so the baseline applies. The description adds little beyond the schema, and the only extra hint ('specified sequence') directly maps to the already-documented sequenceId parameter.

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 identifies the action ('Updates'), the target ('existing marker'), and the scope ('in the specified sequence'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like add_marker or remove_markers, but 'existing' and 'updates' make the distinction unambiguous.

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?

It provides useful context by noting the sequence does not have to be active, which clarifies a common assumption. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over add_marker, place_markers, or remove_markers, nor what to do if the marker is not found.

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