markers

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'add or delete' but never mentions mutation effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or the dry_run preview capability that exists in the schema. For a destructive-capable tool with only one sentence, this is far too thin.

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?

It is concise and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — one sentence cannot carry the needed context for a 10-parameter tool.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is drastically incomplete. It omits parameter guidance, behavior, usage context, and return information — essentially everything beyond a bare action list.

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 explicitly names only three of the ten parameters (implicitly via action enum). Key parameters like start/end/position, color, length_bars, marker_index, is_region, and dry_run get no explanation in the description, and several lack schema descriptions too.

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 states the resource (markers and regions) and lists the actions available via the enum, giving an agent enough to know it's a marker/region CRUD tool. However, it provides no scope, no distinction from siblings, and the one-liner is too terse to fully separate it from other editing tools.

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 when-to-use guidance is given — no preconditions, no indication of when this should be preferred over raw_command or other editing tools. The agent gets no routing help.

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