tempo_add_marker

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

The description explains parameter behaviors (e.g., 0 inherits previous value, linear ramp), which is valuable given no annotations. It implies mutation but does not mention side effects like overwriting existing markers or undoability.

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 clear points for each parameter. It is efficient but the Args section could be slightly more concise; still, every sentence adds value.

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 covers all inputs fully for a mutation tool with no output schema. It does not explain what happens if a marker already exists at the position, but this is minor. Overall sufficient for typical use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully defines each parameter: position is time in seconds, bpm inherits if 0, time_sig_num/denom for numerator/denominator, linear for ramp mode. This compensates completely for the schema gap.

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 it adds a tempo and/or time-signature marker at a given time, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tempo_delete_marker, tempo_list_markers, and transport_set_bpm by focusing on marker addition.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transport_set_bpm or transport_set_time_signature. It lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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