mcp_opendaw_delete_marker

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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, signaling destructive action. The description adds the method of deletion (by index) but does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., irreversibility, effect on project state). It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each essential. Front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, straightforward purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the deletion is irreversible or what happens if the index is invalid, but these are minor gaps.

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?

The description explains the single parameter 'marker_index' as 'Index from list_markers (0-based)', which adds critical meaning beyond the schema (only type and title). With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates.

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 'Delete a timeline marker by index' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (timeline marker). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_marker, set_marker_label, and delete_warp_marker.

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 advises to get the index from list_markers, which is a helpful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_marker_label to modify, or other delete tools). Context is implied but not fully explicit.

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