remove_markers

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 this well by explaining the no-wildcard remove-all policy, the OR matching behavior, and the activeSequence result field. It stops short of explicitly warning about destructiveness or irreversibility, but the word 'remove' plus the detailed filter semantics make the operation's nature clear enough.

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 rich but tightly packed. Every sentence carries operational value: purpose, filter requirements, common use cases, OR semantics, and result shape. It is front-loaded with the core action and does not repeat schema boilerplate.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It explains required inputs, failure conditions, matching semantics, and what the caller should inspect in the result (activeSequence) to handle the user switching sequences in Premiere. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying the intended use case for each filter (batch cleanup vs. surgical removal), the ±0.05s matching tolerance, and the OR combination semantics—information not inferable from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove markers from the active sequence.' It clearly distinguishes this from marker-reading tools like list_markers and singular delete_marker, and the rest of the description reinforces the exact scope of the operation.

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 states when to use each filter: prefix for batch cleanup and startSecMatches for surgical removal after using list_markers. It clearly states the exclusivity rule (at least one filter is required, both together use OR semantics) and the failure condition when both are omitted. This leaves no ambiguity about how to select and invoke the tool.

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