delete_marker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it simply says 'Delete a marker' and says nothing about whether the operation is destructive, reversible, if it requires any permissions, or what side effects might occur (e.g., affecting layer markers vs composition markers). This is a significant gap for a deletion tool.

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, which is concise, but it does not provide any meaningful information. It is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as the single sentence does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not mention what markers are affected (composition vs layer), how markerIndex is used, or what the response looks like, leaving the agent without essential context to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (compId, compName, layerName, layerIndex, markerIndex). Since the schema itself provides no descriptions, the lack of parameter explanation means the agent has no idea how to construct a valid request beyond the names and types.

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' clearly states the verb (delete) and the resource (a marker), but it does not specify what kind of marker (composition marker vs layer marker) or how it is identified, making it somewhat vague. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_composition_marker or delete_layer.

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. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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