remove_warp_marker

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when no marker exists at that beat_time, whether the removal is undoable, or how errors are surfaced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity crosses into under-specification for a four-parameter destructive tool rather than true conciseness.

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 destructive, four-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient: it leaves three required/optional parameters undefined and gives no failure or undo context. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but little else is covered.

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 carry the load, yet it only names beat_time and omits track_index, clip_index, and the arrangement boolean entirely. The agent cannot tell from the description which track/clip the marker belongs to or what arrangement=true changes.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('warp marker') plus the identifying parameter ('beat_time'), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby siblings add_warp_marker, move_warp_marker, and get_warp_markers.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of move_warp_marker (reposition) or when removal is appropriate versus editing. No prerequisites, no mention of clip/track scoping requirements, and no exclusions are given.

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