remove_audio_warp_marker

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, yet the description explicitly says this tool applies 'deletion' of a marker. This is an annotation contradiction, so transparency fails per the scoring rules. The description also does not clarify reversibility, permissions, or side effects beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and each clause adds a meaningful constraint: exact, visible, rejects hidden terminal marker, rejects stale clip state. Every sentence earns its place despite the compact, somewhat jargon-heavy phrasing.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition plus schema covers the plan/apply pattern and key marker constraints reasonably well. However, it does not explicitly guide the agent toward the correct sibling tool, and the unresolved destructiveHint contradiction leaves the behavioral context incomplete.

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 100% and the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds useful conceptual context by specifying that the marker must be visible and exact, and that the hidden terminal marker and stale clip state (expectedStateVersion) are rejected, which goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Plan or apply deletion of an exact visible audio warp marker.' The qualifiers 'exact' and 'visible' distinguish it from sibling marker manipulation tools such as add/move/quantize, and the second sentence reinforces scope by noting rejection of the hidden terminal marker.

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 'Plan or apply deletion' and 'exact visible audio warp marker' provide clear context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor are sibling tools named as alternatives. The rejection clauses imply constraints, but the agent is left to infer the intended selection conditions.

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