delete_marker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one non-obvious behavior: the target sequence does not have to be active. However, it does not mention whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, what happens if the marker does not exist, or any undo implications, which are relevant for a delete 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action and the most important scoping caveat are both front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter delete operation, the description covers the core action and sequence scoping. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of how to discover marker IDs or when to use remove_markers instead, there are notable gaps that an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions, so the bar is at baseline 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states for sequenceId and markerId. The 'does not have to be active' note is useful but largely reiterates that list_sequences can supply sequence IDs.

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 a specific verb ('Deletes'), a resource ('a marker'), and the scope ('from the specified sequence'). It also adds the useful detail that the sequence need not be active. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'remove_markers', so an agent may still need to infer the difference.

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 line 'The sequence does not have to be the active one' gives useful context about when this tool is applicable, especially for non-active sequences. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'remove_markers' or how to obtain marker IDs via list_markers / get_sequence_markers_by_type. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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