remove_marker

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates the destructive nature of the action ('Remove'), but it does not disclose whether removal is permanent, what happens when the marker does not exist, or whether related animation data is affected.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args block is slightly redundant with the input schema but does not add meaningful clutter.

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 simple one-parameter removal tool, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the operation and the argument. It omits error behavior and whether removal is irreversible, which an agent may need to recover from failed or unexpected calls.

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 must compensate. The Args section explains that marker_name is the name of the marker to remove, which is slightly more than the schema's bare title. However, it adds no detail on formatting, uniqueness, case sensitivity, or required marker existence.

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 ('Remove') and a specific resource ('a timeline marker'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_marker and set_animation_range without needing to inspect schemas.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when a named timeline marker should be removed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites such as the marker needing to exist, or alternatives like add_marker.

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