live_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 behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies a mutation, but the description does not disclose whether the deletion is undoable (a live_undo sibling exists), what happens if the marker is not found, or whether the Studio One connection must be live for it to succeed.

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 waste; the resource and the two addressing modes are conveyed immediately.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description leaves key gaps: error behavior, undo semantics, and parameter mutuality are all unaddressed.

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: it usefully clarifies that 'number' comes from live_markers and that 'seconds' is an exact position. However, it omits which parameter takes precedence when both are passed, or whether they are mutually exclusive.

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 (delete) and resource (marker) and scopes it to 'the running Studio One', which distinguishes it clearly from sibling live_add_marker and live_markers. An agent can identify this as the deletion counterpart without opening the schema.

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?

It tells the agent the two ways to identify a marker (number or exact seconds), which is useful targeting context, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no explicit statement that the two identifiers are alternatives, and no note that at least one must be supplied (required parameters = 0).

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