edit_delete

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

Despite no annotations, the description adds key behavioral information: that deletion is final (no clipboard), and that a prior selection is required. This is sufficient for a simple delete operation. It does not delve into undo or error states, but the provided context is adequate for agent understanding.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant words, and the core action is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the operation and the prerequisite.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential details: what it does, what is required before use, and how it differs from a similar tool. It does not cover error scenarios, but for a basic delete operation this is sufficient. No output schema exists, but the return value is likely trivial.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as no parameters exist. Baseline is 4 per the guidance for zero-parameter tools.

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 tool deletes selected audio without copying to clipboard, distinguishing it from edit_cut. It specifies the resource (selected audio) and action (delete), and the prerequisite to select a region makes the 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 explicitly instructs to 'Select a region first', providing a clear prerequisite. It also notes the tool does not copy to clipboard, which helps differentiate from cut. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied cut.

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