delete_marker

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

The destructiveHint: true annotation already flags this as a write/destroy operation, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it explicitly limits the blast radius by stating the audio or MIDI under the marker/region survives. It does not mention reversibility or whether undo (a sibling tool) applies, but the key destructive-scope question is answered.

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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, where the parenthetical clarification is the only extra clause and it clearly earns its place.

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 deletion tool with a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description covers what is deleted and what is preserved, which is the essential information. The notable remaining gap is the region flag's semantics, and secondarily whether the deletion is undoable, neither of which is addressed.

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 50%: the 'marker' parameter is documented (name or number) in the schema, while 'region' has no description at all. The description's phrase 'marker or region' hints that region is a mode switch, but it never explains how the boolean interacts with the marker argument, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (deletes) plus specific resource (marker or region), and the parenthetical bounds what is NOT removed (audio/MIDI). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from add_marker and edit_marker by verb alone, but it never names those siblings or routes the agent between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to use edit_marker to rename/move instead, or that delete_item handles the underlying media. The parenthetical describes scope of deletion, not the conditions that select this tool over its neighbors.

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