Remove chart marker

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Remove'. It does not clarify irretrievability, permissions required, or side effects on related data. With minimal annotation coverage, the description should carry more weight, but it remains terse.

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 entire description is a single, clear sentence with zero redundant words. It is front-loaded and achieves its purpose without any fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about the need for an open chart, whether the id is chart-scoped, or any error conditions. Given sibling tools like chart_open and chart_add_marker exist, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 description mentions 'by id', which confirms the id parameter is the marker identifier, but adds no details about format, constraints, or behavior. The schema already defines type and length, so the description offers only marginal value. Given the single parameter and complete schema, a baseline 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 ('Remove') and the object ('chart marker') with a specific method ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling removal tools like chart_remove_indicator or chart_remove_level, as it explicitly targets 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 usage (when you have a marker id and want to remove it), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as having a chart open or owning the marker. For a straightforward removal tool, this is acceptable but not informative.

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