remove_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state that deletion is irreversible, what happens with an out-of-range index, or whether it targets active sequence vs a specific clip. 'Delete' implies mutation but no consequences are described.

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?

Four words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero padding. However, the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than well-sized conciseness.

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?

A destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover irreversibility, index sourcing, and scope (sequence vs clip markers). None of that is present, so an agent could call it and be surprised.

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 and its meaning (marker index from get_markers) are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Delete a sequence marker") makes the action clear. It nominally distinguishes sequence markers from clip/project-item markers, but never explicitly tells the agent whether this also removes clip or project-item markers, and the sibling set contains add_clip_marker / add_project_item_marker with no corresponding remove variants, leaving ambiguity.

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 indication of when to use this versus clear_markers (remove all), update_marker, or get_markers to find the index first. The only usage hint lives in the schema ("Marker index from get_markers"), not the description.

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