delete_marker

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it fails to mention that this tool likely performs a destructive operation (permanently removing a marker). It does not describe what happens to related data, whether confirmation is needed, or any side effects on other markers or the timeline.

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 extremely short at three words, which could be considered concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It does not earn its place because it fails to convey essential information. A description this minimal would only be acceptable if the tool name and schema were fully self-explanatory, which they are not.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It omits crucial context such as whether the marker is from a composition or layer, how to resolve conflicts (e.g., if multiple markers exist), and the return behavior (e.g., success message, void).

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%, meaning the description must explain parameters. However, it lists no parameter details. The schema has 5 parameters ('compId', 'compName', 'layerName', 'layerIndex', 'markerIndex') with only 'markerIndex' required. The description adds zero meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving agents to guess which context (layer vs. composition) and how to identify the target.

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 'Delete a marker' is vague and does not specify what type of marker (e.g., composition marker, layer marker) or from which context it is deleted. It lacks a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_composition_marker', 'add_layer_marker', or 'get_markers'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_markers' to list markers before deletion, or the difference between composition and layer markers. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having the composition open) or when not to use it.

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