Delete one cue

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does so: pre-existence check with refusal before sending, read-back verification with matched/mismatched/unavailable outcomes, no change to selection or programmer, never retried, and an explicit caveat that the mutation lock does not isolate from other console operators or clients.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and command, then layered with constraints and return semantics; nearly every sentence is load-bearing. It is dense and telegraphic, with a few clauses that read as run-ons rather than flowing prose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral and return-shape vocabulary (verification statuses) plus concurrency caveats. An agent has what it needs to call it safely and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema already documents cue, verify, sequence, data_pool, and use_selected_sequence. The description reinforces the single-cue-number rule but adds no format or resolution detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete exactly one explicit cue') and even gives the exact console command issued. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gma3_store_cue and gma3_edit_cues by insisting on a single explicit cue and rejecting ranges.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use constraints: one explicit cue only, ranges (Thru, +) rejected, and the operation is refused if the cue does not exist. It does not name a sibling alternative for range deletions, but the usage envelope is unambiguous.

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