delete_warp_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete a warp marker' which implies a mutating operation, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, error behavior (e.g., if the marker doesn't exist), or any confirmation requirements. For a destructive action, this is a significant gap.

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 followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. No extra filler words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 3-parameter delete operation without an output schema, the description covers the action and all parameter meanings. It doesn't explain edge cases or error handling, but given the simplicity and clear sibling context (add/get warp markers), it is nearly complete. A full score would require noting what happens if the marker is absent or whether the operation is undoable.

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 only provides parameter titles, but the description adds meaningful definitions for each parameter: track_index is the track index, clip_index is the clip slot index, and beat_time is the beat time position of the marker. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and provides enough context to understand how to specify the target warp marker.

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 starts with 'Delete a warp marker from an audio clip.' This is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_warp_marker and get_warp_markers. It immediately conveys exactly what the tool does.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool (deleting a warp marker), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use this instead of add_warp_marker' or note prerequisites like the marker must exist. Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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