create_marker

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits beyond the fact that it creates something. It does not mention whether the operation overwrites existing markers, what units 'time' uses, what the return value indicates, or whether it is reversible. The description only states the intent without revealing side effects or constraints.

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 a single sentence with no redundant wording, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so sparse that it might be considered under-specified rather than efficiently written, so a small deduction is appropriate.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, zero annotations, and an output schema, the description must provide enough context for correct invocation. It does not explain parameter units, expected values, relationship to other tools, or any edge cases. The description is complete only in the most trivial sense.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the 'time' (number) or 'name' (string) parameters. It leaves ambiguous whether 'time' is in seconds, milliseconds, or project beats, and whether 'name' is a required label or can be empty. The tool description fails entirely to compensate for the schema's missing parameter descriptions.

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 (create) and target (marker) with a scope (in the project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_region and delete_marker, though it doesn't elaborate on what a marker represents in the project.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_region or create_track. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer when a marker is appropriate.

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