delete_warp_marker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and parameters, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, whether markers must exist, or reversibility. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient.

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 concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a simple parameter list. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the parameter list duplicates what is already in the schema.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information. However, it lacks usage context, edge cases, and any behavioral details, making it only minimally 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 schema has no descriptions for parameters, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'The index of the track'). These explanations add basic meaning beyond the schema, but they are minimal and do not provide details like value ranges or units.

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 action (delete) and resource (warp marker from an audio clip), which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like add_warp_marker or get_warp_markers, but the verb sufficiently sets it apart.

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 or when to prefer alternatives. While it is implied that it is for removing warp markers, there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools.

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