clear_markers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the extent of destruction ('all' markers) and the target ('active sequence'), which is exactly the key behavioral fact. However it says nothing about irreversibility, whether undo/redo can restore the markers, or behavior when no sequence is active — gaps that matter for an unannotated destructive tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope arrive in order and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what is deleted and where, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of failure-mode or recoverability context (no active sequence, undo availability).

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the description correctly implies no targeting input is needed. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('markers'), and scope ('all... on the active sequence'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the singular remove_marker and from get_markers/update_marker in the sibling list. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but an agent can tell what it does without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'all' signals a bulk clear versus remove_marker for a single marker, and 'active sequence' signals the target. It never states when not to use it, that it is a bulk destructive alternative to remove_marker, or any prerequisite such as an open/active sequence, leaving the agent to infer.

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