marker_delete

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

Without annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral transparency. It only states that deletion occurs, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior (e.g., if the marker doesn't exist), reversibility, or any impact on associated data. 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 concise, containing only the essential action and parameter explanation. The structure is acceptable, though the 'Args:' label is a bit abrupt. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 that the tool is a delete operation with no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about error handling, idempotency, or prerequisites. The current description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about what to expect when invoking this tool.

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 description adds meaning to the 'target' parameter by specifying it as a Marker GUID, which is not present in the schema. This helps the agent understand the expected format, though it does not explain how to obtain or format the GUID.

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 that the tool deletes a marker/region/sustain point/transition, which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling marker tools like marker_add_* and marker_rename by indicating the delete action.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This is a significant gap given the many sibling marker tools.

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