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 for a mutation tool. It never says whether the deletion is permanent, whether it errors when no marker exists at that frame, what happens if multiple markers share a frame, or whether any permission is required.

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, so nothing is wasteful. The brevity is a liability for specification rather than an efficiency win, which keeps it from a 5.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should at least resolve the marker-identity question and the failure mode. As written, the agent cannot tell what a successful call looks like or what state it must supply beyond a raw integer.

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 for frame_id and does not. 'At a frame' loosely implies frame_id identifies a frame, but it never clarifies whether that is a timeline frame number, a position, or whether a frame uniquely identifies a marker when several markers could sit at the same frame.

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 (the marker) with a scope hint (at a frame), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate from the obvious siblings add_marker and get_markers, so it falls short of a 5.

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 versus add_marker or get_markers, nor any precondition such as the marker having to exist first. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the tool name alone.

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