remove_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that removal is irreversible, what happens when no filters are supplied (presumably all markers are removed), whether the two filters combine with AND/OR logic, or what the operation returns.

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 wasted prose. The grammar is slightly awkward ('or of one kind'), but it remains efficient.

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, unannotated, two-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description leaves key operational facts unstated: permanence of deletion, default behavior with no filters, and filter composition. It is not sufficient on its own.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions both the name-substring filter and the kind filter, but does not explain the allowed kind values (standard/todo/chapter, visible only in the schema enum) or whether both filters can be applied simultaneously.

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 and resource ('Remove markers') plus the optional filtering scope. An agent can readily distinguish it from add_marker and list_markers, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'optionally only those whose name contains text or of one kind' hints at filtering, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_markers or how to decide between filtering modes. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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