delete_marker

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive operation via 'Deletes', but does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, requires specific permissions, how it handles nonexistent markers, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation 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 a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point without any filler. It is front-loaded, easy to parse, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 delete operation, the description conveys the core action, but it lacks context about return values, error behavior, and relationship to other marker tools. Without annotations, some behavioral context is missing, though the operation is straightforward and the schema covers parameters.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (markerId and sequenceId) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantic load and the description adds no additional parameter context.

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 'Deletes a marker from the timeline' clearly states the specific action (delete) on a specific resource (marker) within a specific context (timeline). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_marker, update_marker, and list_markers.

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 implies it is used to remove a marker, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as update_marker or list_markers. There is no mention of preconditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the usage context 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.