marker_delete

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action (delete) without disclosing side effects, behavior on invalid indices, or whether the operation is undoable. This is minimal transparency 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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences and a bullet for the argument. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 deletion tool with one parameter, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the essential input and usage hint, but lacks safety details and confirmation of return behavior. The tool is straightforward, so completeness is reasonable.

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 single parameter marker_index is documented as 'Index from marker_get_all', which provides meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition. This helps the agent understand the expected value.

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 it deletes a marker or region, and specifies the input as an index from marker_get_all. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like markers_apply for batch operations.

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?

It advises to prefer markers_apply for multiple deletions, which gives a clear usage hint. However, it does not explicitly cover when not to use this tool or provide other alternatives.

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