marker_set_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it moves a marker, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., what happens if the target guid is invalid, whether position is clamped, or if any related data (like snapshots or automation) is affected). The only disclosed constraint is position >= 0, which is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 exceptionally concise: one clear action sentence followed by a simple list of arguments with type and constraint. No filler, front-loaded with the verb, and parameter details are directly relevant. Every word earns its place.

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 simple operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It specifies the marker type and position constraint, but it omits any mention of error behavior (e.g., invalid guid, out-of-range position) or success indication. Given the lack of annotations, more detail on expected outcomes or failure modes would improve completeness.

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 compensate. It provides meaningful semantics: target is a 'Marker {guid}' (implying a string GUID), and position is 'New position in seconds (>= 0)' (numeric with a non-negative constraint). This adds value beyond the raw schema, but it is minimal and doesn't specify formats or edge cases, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action: 'Move a point-type marker (named marker, sustain point, transition marker) to a new timeline position.' It specifies the exact resource type and distinguishes from sibling operations like marker_set_region (for region markers) and marker_rename, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by specifying the tool is for point-type markers, which implicitly excludes region markers (handled by marker_set_region). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or give when-not guidelines, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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