add_project_item_marker

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 indicates a mutation to a project item's media but does not explain permissions, side effects, duplicate handling, whether the project must be open, or what is returned.

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 filler. It is terse, but the terseness reflects missing detail rather than wasteful wording.

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 six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this is far too sparse. It conveys the core action and timing basis but leaves most parameter meanings, required nodeId semantics, return behavior, and project-state assumptions unexplained.

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 only 17%, and the description merely repeats the one documented parameter, 'source time.' The required nodeId and the name, color, comment, and duration parameters are left without semantic explanation.

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, 'add a marker,' plus the target scope: a project item's media at source time. This distinguishes it from timeline or clip marker siblings by naming the project-item media context, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'project item's media (source time)' phrasing implies the appropriate context, especially versus clip or timeline markers. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over add_marker, add_clip_marker, or add_markers, and it gives no prerequisites.

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