delete_range

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well on blast radius: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed and what survives (slurs, text, other markings) unless include_markings=True. It says nothing about reversibility/undo, permission or mode requirements, or what happens to the voice when everything in the range is removed.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the destructive action and then qualifies the scope; no filler. The nested parenthetical for range syntax is compact but packs two distinct conventions into one clause, slightly taxing on first read.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core destruction/preservation semantics but omits the flow parameter, position formatting, and any recovery guidance. Adequate to act on, but an agent could still call it with an incorrectly formatted range.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 7 undocumented parameters. It explains the from_pos/to_pos half-open interval, inclusive bars, and include_markings, but leaves 'flow', the bar-vs-position parameter choice, position string format, and precedence when both are supplied entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) plus the exact resource set: notes, rests, grace notes and tuplets belonging to one voice within a range. The scoping detail (voice-scoped, range-bounded, markings preserved) makes the operation unmistakable, though it never names a sibling such as delete_events to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the range syntax note ('bars inclusive, or positions [from_pos, to_pos)'), which tells the agent how to express a target region. There is no explicit when-to-use versus delete_events or copy_range, and no stated prerequisite such as an active selection or flow context.

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