delete_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates deletion but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, side effects on other markers or the timeline, or behavior on invalid index. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 wasted words. It efficiently states the action, resource, and identifier. It could be slightly more complete without becoming verbose, but its concision is appropriate for the core operation.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits return behavior, error conditions, index semantics, and confirmation of destructive action. An agent lacks enough context to invoke it safely and correctly in all cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'by index' but does not clarify whether the index is zero-based, one-based, or an identifier, nor what range is valid. It adds only minimal meaning beyond the parameter name marker_index.

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 (Delete) and resource (marker) and adds the identifying mechanism (by index). It clearly distinguishes from sibling operations like add_marker and get_markers, but it does not explicitly contrast with delete_region or other delete_* tools. A 4 is appropriate for a clear, actionable purpose without sibling routing.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say whether to use this versus delete_region, or what happens if the marker is referenced elsewhere. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description, which is insufficient for a 3.

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