clip_delete_marker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does clearly state that the operation deletes a marker, which signals destructiveness, but it provides no additional context about error conditions (e.g., if no marker exists at that frame), reversibility, permissions, or potential ambiguity with multiple markers on the same frame. The description largely restates what the name implies.

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 communicates the essential information without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and includes no redundancy.

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 delete operation, the description plus schema covers the basic invocation. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs. the similar delete-marker tools for timelines or items, and it doesn't mention potential edge cases (e.g., missing marker or multiple markers on a frame). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the missing usage context keeps it from being fully complete.

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%: both clip_name and frame_id have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description adds the phrase 'specific frame' which aligns with frame_id, but no extra semantic value beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and the target (marker on a clip), with a specific qualifier (at a specific frame). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like timeline_delete_marker or item_delete_marker, and makes the tool's primary 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name 'clip_delete_marker' and the phrase 'on a clip' hint at the clip context, there is no explicit mention of using this for media pool clips vs. timeline markers or item markers, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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