marker_edit

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that position -1 keeps current and name None keeps current, but does not state side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success/failure. Significant gaps remain.

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 very concise: a one-line purpose followed by a clean Arg list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description omits return values or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap. Given no annotations, the description should provide more context about outcomes.

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 0%, so the description adds essential meaning. It explains position constraints ('>= 0, or -1 to keep current') and the default for name ('None=keep'). However, marker_index lacks detail beyond 'Marker index', which could be improved.

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 'Edit marker/region', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by guiding users to prefer markers_apply for multiple edits or region end/color changes, 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 explicitly advises when to use an alternative: 'Prefer markers_apply for multiple, or to also edit a region\'s end/color.' This provides clear context and exclusions, helping the agent decide when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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