remove_sync_markers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the action as removal but does not mention irreversibility, asset save behavior, permissions required, or the effect of omitting both optional filters (though 'or all' hints at it). This is insufficient for 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?

The description is very brief, with a single sentence for the action and a structured Args list. Every sentence is informative, and the key purpose is front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 low complexity (3 params, one required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks important safety context for a destructive tool (e.g., confirmation, irreversibility) and doesn't explain the interaction between filters, leaving the description minimally complete.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section provides needed meaning. It explains 'marker_name' filters by name and 'track_name' filters by track, but does not clarify behavior when both are provided, or the exact semantics of 'all'. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('sync markers'), and distinguishes behavior by name, track, or all. This differentiates it from sibling tools such as get_sync_markers or add_sync_marker.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sync_markers or add_sync_marker. The usage is implied from the name and description, but no context or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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