add_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a mutating bulk-add operation, but does not disclose atomicity, required active sequence state, validation behavior, duplicate handling, or any side effects beyond adding markers.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is perhaps overly terse given the nested parameter structure, but it is structurally clean.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested markers array with zero schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete. An agent lacks enough context about marker object semantics and invocation prerequisites to use it reliably without inspecting the schema manually.

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% and the only parameter is a nested array of marker objects. The description does not explain the required 'time' field, optional fields like name/type/color/comment/duration, or the allowed marker types and color enums, so it barely compensates for the undocumented 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 states a specific verb and resource: adding multiple sequence markers at once. It distinguishes itself from singular add_marker and from clip/project-item marker tools by saying 'sequence markers' and 'many ... at once'. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 phrase 'many ... at once' implies bulk usage versus repeated calls to add_marker, and the examples 'chapters or beat markers' hint at use cases. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of required active sequence context, and no named alternatives.

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