delete_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the name—that deletion can target a non-active sequence—which is genuinely useful context. However, it does not describe what happens on success or failure, whether the deletion is irreversible, or what the function returns. The destructive nature of a delete is implied by the verb but not elaborated.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, and the second immediately conveys the key constraint about the active sequence. Every word earns its place, and the most actionable information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter deletion operation with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the action, the resource, and the sole important edge case (inactive sequences). The only minor gap is the lack of information about return values or error behavior, but for a delete of this simplicity, that is a small omission.

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 100%, and both markerId and sequenceId already have clear descriptions in the JSON schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting adequately.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Deletes a marker from the specified sequence.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_marker, update_marker, and list_markers, which operate on the same resource but with different actions. The additional constraint that the sequence need not be active further clarifies its scope.

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 provides useful context—that the target sequence does not have to be the active one—which tells an agent that a sequenceId for any sequence, active or not, is acceptable. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or exclude scenarios (e.g., what to do for project-item markers vs sequence markers). Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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