event_add_marker_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the idempotent 'get-or-create' behavior, reuse of existing tracks, and indicates via 'reused' how the result is communicated. It does not mention failure modes or other side effects, but the core behavioral contract is transparent.

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 the purpose in the first sentence and argument details in a short 'Args' list. There is no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the essential behavior and the parameter format. The note about 'reused' hints at the return value. There is no additional complexity that demands more detail, so it is complete for its complexity.

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 only says 'target' is a string with no other details. The description adds essential semantics: 'event:// path or {guid}', clarifying the allowed format for the single parameter. This meaningfully reduces ambiguity beyond the schema (coverage was 0%).

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 begins with 'Get-or-create a marker (logic) track' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from generic 'event_add_track' by specifying the track type ('marker (logic)'). The term 'marker (logic) track' is slightly ambiguous, but the intent is clear from context and sibling 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?

The description gives explicit guidance to check existing tracks (via event_list_tracks-style state) before assuming a fresh track is needed, and clarifies that this tool is the preferred get-or-create path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and context-aware.

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