resolve_delete_markers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no arguments cause no changes, and that removed marker records are returned for restoration. It also clarifies frame semantics ('exact timeline-relative frame (including zero)'). These are useful, though it does not discuss permissions or side effects; still, the behavior is adequately transparent for a simple delete operation.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: the first states the action and selection criteria, the second clarifies the no-op behavior and the return value. There is no wasted wording.

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 delete tool with two optional parameters and an output schema (which likely documents the return format), the description covers the essential behavior. It mentions the 'All' option and frame semantics that are not apparent from the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'color' and 'frame' to the properties, indicates that 'All' is a valid color value, and explains frame is timeline-relative and can be zero. However, it does not specify whether color and frame can be combined or the expected format of the color string, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('markers') and lists the selection criteria (color, All, frame). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_add_marker and resolve_get_markers by its explicit delete operation, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description clearly indicates what the tool does, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like resolve_add_marker or resolve_get_markers, leaving the usage context 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.