Delete one cue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the existence pre-check that refuses with nothing sent, the post-mutation verification outcomes (matched/mismatched/unavailable), no change to selection or programmer, never retried, and an honest caveat that the mutation lock only orders this server's own mutations and does not isolate it from other operators or clients.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and rejected forms, then behavior and caveats. Every sentence is substantive, though the paragraph is dense enough that a couple of clauses (verification result taxonomy, lock caveat) could be tightened.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters: the description covers preconditions, refusal semantics, verification return states, side-effect scope, retry policy, and concurrency caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 100%, so cue, verify, sequence, and use_selected_sequence are already documented in the schema, making the baseline 3. The description reinforces the single-cue constraint and verification behavior but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (one explicit cue), plus the exact console command form `Delete Sequence n Cue c /NoConfirmation`. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gma3_store_cue or gma3_goto_cue, and the 'exactly one' / 'ranges rejected' scoping pins down the operation.

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?

Explicitly defines the when-not condition: ranges (Thru, +) are rejected, so bulk deletes must go elsewhere. It also states the precondition that the cue must exist or the tool refuses. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for ranged deletion, so it falls just below full routing guidance.

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