Remove an arrangement locator by its index or name while the transport is stopped. Restores the playhead after deletion.
Delete a locator, addressed by index (time order) or by name. The transport must be stopped; the playhead is put back afterwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locator | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the transport-stopped prerequisite and the playhead being restored afterwards, which are side effects not derivable from annotations.
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, front-loaded with the action, no filler; the addressing detail and precondition each earn their place.
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?
With no output schema, the description is appropriately scoped: addressing semantics, precondition, and side effects are covered. It could note failure behavior (e.g., if the transport is running or the locator is not found), but for a one-param tool it is essentially 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it explains the lone param accepts either an index (interpreted in time order) or a name. This disambiguates the anyOf integer/string type that the schema leaves unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a locator') and clarifies the addressing modes, distinguishing it cleanly from siblings like create_locator and set_locator. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.
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?
Provides a precondition ('The transport must be stopped'), which is implied usage guidance, but never names alternatives (e.g., set_locator vs delete, or undo) or states when deletion is preferable. Context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.