delete_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only adds that the sequence need not be active; it does not state that deletion is irreversible, whether permissions are needed, what happens if the marker does not exist, or whether the marker is a sequence marker rather than a clip/project marker. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes one valuable clarifying detail. Every word contributes meaning and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple, has only two fully described parameters, and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a delete operation with no annotations, it would benefit from stating whether the deletion is permanent or undoable and clarifying that it applies to sequence markers. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both required parameters, including the meaning of sequenceId and markerId. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a marker from the specified sequence'), and adds a useful scope clarification that the sequence need not be active. However, it does not explicitly distinguish sequence markers from clip markers or project-item markers, and sibling tools like list_markers or update_marker are not referenced.

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 'The sequence does not have to be the active one' provides some context for when this tool can be used, implying it accepts any valid sequence ID. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage direction remains mostly implied.

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