delete_marker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the irreversible nature of deletion, the tolerance-based matching, and that it reports the remaining count. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw action, though it does not cover error cases or permissions.

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 well-structured sentences: the first delivers the core action and outcome, the second provides a critical caution. No filler or redundancy, and the warning is front-loaded for safety.

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 deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the tolerance matching, the count report, and the irreversible warning. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., no marker found), but given the low complexity, this is largely complete.

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%, with both time_seconds and tolerance_seconds documented. The description's mention of 'small tolerance' aligns with the tolerance_seconds parameter but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action (Delete), the resource (marker), and the specific behavior (nearest a given time, within a small tolerance). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_marker and list_markers by its focus on deletion and the matching logic.

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?

Provides a clear warning to check list_markers before deleting, indicating a prerequisite and cautioning against irreversible action. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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