Delete one chapter marker

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful blast-radius context ('the video is untouched') so the agent knows only the marker is destroyed, plus the confirm requirement — useful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Each clause (scope, safety clarification, prerequisite) 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 3-parameter delete, annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the parameters; the description supplies the missing safety nuance. Little is missing, though still no note on failure modes or return value.

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 100%, so confirm, video_id and chapter_id are already documented. The description only echoes the confirm requirement and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (chapter marker), with explicit scope ('one'). The 'The video is untouched' clause immediately distinguishes it from delete_video and other deletion siblings, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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 conveys the confirm: true prerequisite, which is real usage guidance, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as update_chapter or delete_video. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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