delete_cue

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'Delete' without disclosing irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, or impact on sequence. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is short and structured with 'Args:', 'Returns:', and 'Examples:' sections. It is efficient, though the example line is minimal and could be more illustrative.

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 simple deletion tool with one parameter and a return type, the description covers the basics. However, it omits behavioral context like irreversibility, which is crucial for deletion, making it merely adequate.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It defines 'cue_id' as 'Cue number to delete', adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Cue Id' title. However, it could specify valid ranges or constraints.

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 clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a cue from the current sequence'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function. It is distinct from siblings like 'update_cue' or 'store_cue'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_cue' for modifications, or 'store_cue' for addition). No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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