applyBeatMarkersToComp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the concrete side effect and its artifacts (labeled Downbeats, Beats, Kick, Snare, Major Impacts) and where they land (comp timeline vs. layer), but it never says what happens to pre-existing markers, whether the operation is undoable, or that audio analysis is potentially slow/long-running.

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 front-loaded sentence: verb first, parenthetical label list second, target third. No filler or repetition; it could be marginally tighter by folding the label list into the marker-mode phrase, but it is well structured.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and result artifacts adequately. What is missing — return value/analysis latency, failure on unreadable audio, and interaction with existing markers — is moderate rather than fatal, but with zero annotations the description should have picked up more of that slack.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters including the `markerMode` enum. The description adds only light mapping between the listed marker labels and the marker-mode choices, and says nothing about the semantics of `startTime`/`endTime` or `clearExistingMarkers` beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 chain ("Analyze audio beats & drum hits and automatically inject labeled markers") plus the concrete resource (markers in an After Effects composition or target layer). An agent can tell what it does, though it never names the sibling `analyzeAudioRhythm`, so the boundary between analysis-only and analysis-plus-marker-injection is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the effect ("inject markers into a composition or target layer") but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements and no prerequisites such as needing an open project or a valid audio file. The presence of the closely related `analyzeAudioRhythm` sibling makes the absence of a routing sentence a real gap.

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