add_sync_marker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning whether the asset is modified in place, whether permissions are required, whether existing markers are overwritten, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list. Every line serves a purpose, though the Args section somewhat duplicates the schema's parameter list. It is well-structured and easy to parse, but not exceptionally lean.

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 4 required parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected output or return value, the effect on the animation asset, or any error conditions. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description should provide more context about what happens after invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The Args block provides a one-line explanation for each parameter (e.g., 'asset_path: Unreal asset path'), which adds basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, the explanations are minimal and lack details like formats, constraints, or examples, keeping this at a baseline level.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a sync marker to an animation.' This distinguishes it from other sibling tools that add different elements (e.g., add_notify, add_notify_state). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other mutation tools like add_notify or remove_sync_markers. It does not mention any prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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