delete_locator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important quirk: the two-call requirement due to Ableton API limitations, and it warns to verify success via the 'deleted' field. This goes beyond a simple mutation statement and gives the agent actionable knowledge about the tool's behavior.

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 concise and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a numbered list for the two-call process, and a clear args section. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential behavior (two-call requirement, checking 'deleted') without needing to explain return values since an output schema exists. It could add error-handling notes or clarify invalid indices, but for this complexity level it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema only declares 'index' as an integer with no description, but the description explains that it is the zero-based index of the cue point to delete. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds the critical zero-based detail.

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 opens with 'Delete a cue point (locator) by index,' which clearly states the action (delete), the resource (cue point / locator), and the method (by index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_locator and get_cue_points, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

While the description does not explicitly compare alternatives, it provides crucial usage context by explaining that deletion may require two calls and directs the user to check the 'deleted' field. This tells the agent when and how to invoke the tool correctly, even if it doesn't spell out when not to use it.

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