markers_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is partly covered. The description adds the crucial fact that the removal is undoable, which the agent needs in order to decide whether to act; it stops short of describing whether remaining marker indices shift after removal, which matters for a non-idempotent index-based 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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with zero filler. The undoability note earns its place as a trailing clause.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, target, index source, and reversibility. The only real gap is post-removal index behavior, a minor omission given the annotation coverage.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema documents the 0-1023 bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning by naming arrangement.get as the source of the index, which the schema does not say.

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 (a marker), plus the identifying parameter (index). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling markers_add, but the operation is unambiguous from the text alone.

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?

"from arrangement.get" tells the agent where the index value must come from, which is a real prerequisite for correct invocation. No explicit when-not conditions or sibling comparison are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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