marker_add_transition_region

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 core behavioral effect (jumping to destination) and parameter constraints (position >=0, length >0). However, it does not mention side effects like whether the transition replaces an existing one, reversibility, or any required permissions. This is adequate but not rich, similar to the update_drive example but slightly better due to explicit 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 two concise sentences followed by a bulleted parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and behavior, and every line provides essential information with no fluff. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 is complete for a mutation tool: it explains the trigger condition, the destination target, and all parameter constraints. It references related entities (marker track, NamedMarker, LoopRegion). It does not need to describe return values since there is no output schema. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit alternatives, but the tool's usage is well-specified. Given the complexity and sibling tools, this is highly adequate.

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 is0%, and the description compensates fully. Each parameter is explained with meaning and constraints: track_target is a GUID from event_add_marker_track, position is start in seconds >=0, length is region length >0, destination_target is a GUID of NamedMarker or LoopRegion. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare types in the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a transition region' with an explanation of its behavior ('while playback is inside this range, the timeline jumps to the given destination'). This verb+object+behavior is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like marker_add_region (plain region) and marker_add_transition (likely a point transition).

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 implies usage (adding a transition region) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as marker_add_region or marker_add_transition. It also does not provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond referencing the marker track GUID. While the behavior is clear, there is no direct guidance on selecting this tool over its siblings.

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