remove_marked_frame

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it discloses that the removal runs inside an undo transaction, that the sequence is saved and success requires the save, and that a no-match selector still succeeds with already_removed=true and saved=false. These side-effect and edge-case disclosures exceed what the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the transactional/save behavior and no-match semantics, then the return shape. Two tight paragraphs with no filler; each sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape (removed_index, already_removed, saved, save_error, etc.), and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by framing index/frame/label as alternative selectors for resolving the same mark, though it defers precedence (index over frame/label) to the schema rather than restating it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes one user marked frame from a Level Sequence') and narrows scope to a single mark, distinguishing it from siblings like clear_marked_frames (all marks) and add_marked_frame. An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Explains how the operation works and the three selector modes (index, frame, label) plus the no-match outcome, which is clear usage context. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over clear_marked_frames or get_marked_frames, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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