delete_cue_point

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the mutation ('mutates the Set in one undo step'), the side effect on the playhead ('temporarily moves the playhead'), the no-op return case ('deleted: false'), and a named failure mode ('raises CUE_SNAPPED_TO_GRID'). This is exactly the kind of side-effect and error disclosure an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 action and mechanism, then ordered side effects, example, and edge cases in a compact block with no filler sentences. 'Verified move-and-toggle' is mildly jargon-y but is immediately grounded by the concrete example.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers side effects, failure modes, and the negative return case, which is nearly complete. It stops short of describing the successful return payload or idempotency/retry behavior after a CUE_SNAPPED_TO_GRID failure.

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% (the lone 'time' number parameter has no description), so the description must compensate. The example 'delete_cue_point(8.0) deletes a cue near beat eight' establishes that time is expressed in musical beats rather than seconds and that matching is approximate — meaningful information absent from the schema, though the tolerance/precision itself is left unspecified.

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 a cue point') with an unambiguous target, and no sibling in the list performs this operation (create_cue_point and bulk_create_cue_points are additive). The added mechanism note ('verified move-and-toggle') further pins down what the operation actually does at the DAW level.

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 a concrete invocation example and edge-case behavior, which implies usage, but never states when to prefer this tool over related deletion tools such as delete_arrangement_clip, nor any prerequisites or when-not conditions. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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