delete_cue_point

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the delete action and parameter semantics, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, irreversibility, or prerequisites. This is insufficient for a mutation tool, earning a 2.

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, with a single main sentence and two parameter lines. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, making it highly efficient.

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 delete tool with two parameters and an output schema (though not provided), the description covers the essential functionality. It lacks information about behavior when the cue point does not exist or is invalid, but given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains both parameters: 'bar' as 1-based and 'beat' as 0-based, adding meaning beyond the raw schema properties and defaults. This fully clarifies their semantics.

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 action: 'Delete a cue point at a position.' It specifies the verb (delete) and resource (cue point), and the positional targeting via bar and beat distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_cue_point' and 'jump_to_cue_point'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the simple action of deleting a cue point is self-evident from the name and description. There is no comparison or exclusion of other tools, so it scores 3 as a minimum viable usage guidance.

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