markers_apply

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: silent ignoring of invalid field combinations, the order of operations to avoid index shifting, and error handling that doesn't abort the batch. This is highly 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 well-structured with a summary sentence and detailed 'Args' section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Given the complexity, it is appropriately sized.

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 lacks an explanation of the return value. It mentions an 'errors array' in the response but does not describe the full return structure. For a batch operation, knowing the response format (e.g., success count, error details) 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?

Although the input schema has only one parameter 'entries' with 0% description coverage, the description compensates excellently. It provides detailed examples and semantics for each field, including marker_index, name, start, end, position, color, and delete, explaining constraints and behaviors (e.g., start/end only for regions).

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: 'Batch edit (name/position/start/end/color) or delete markers and regions in one call.' It specifies the exact attributes that can be edited and distinguishes this batch operation from individual marker tools like marker_edit or marker_delete.

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 comprehensive usage guidance, including the exact format for entries, the behavior for mismatched fields (silently ignored), the order of operations (non-delete first, then deletes in descending order), and error handling (bad index recorded in errors, batch continues). It clearly implies this is for batch operations, contrasting with sibling tools.

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