label_regular_intervals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the naming convention ('N' suffix, 1-based), the default prefix, and the fact that duration must be supplied because no C++ primitive exists. It does not state whether a label track is auto-created, whether existing labels are preserved, or where the interval sequence starts.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a brief rationale for the duration parameter and a compact Args section. The C++ primitive explanation is slightly wordy but earns its place by explaining an important design constraint. Overall it is efficient and 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?

The description covers required parameters, constraints, defaults, and naming behavior, and no output schema is expected for an add operation. However, it omits where the interval sequence begins (project start? selection start?) and whether the tool creates a label track if none exists. These are material gaps for correct invocation in an unspecified project context.

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%, so the description must fully document the parameters. It does: interval is spacing in seconds (>0), duration is total coverage in seconds (>0), and text_prefix is the prefix with a 1-based numeric suffix and a default of 'Marker'. This is complete and adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add labels at regular intervals across a known duration.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like label_add_at, label_add_batch, and label_import, since it focuses on evenly spaced labels over an explicit duration.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a known duration is available or can be measured via project_export_audio or an analysis tool. It explicitly warns that the tool will not guess the duration. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicit conditions for preferring a different labeling tool.

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