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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why: 'One undo step' tells the agent the operation is reversible in a single undo, which reconciles the word 'Delete' with the non-destructive hint rather than contradicting it. It also discloses a preservation guarantee ('keeping one video track'), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It stops short of saying whether audio tracks are all removed or what happens when nothing is empty.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the undoability note last. No filler or repetition of the title.

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-required-parameter cleanup tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, what is preserved, and reversibility. It could mention whether a count of removed tracks is returned or whether the call is a no-op when no tracks are empty, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single projectId parameter, including the 'default: the open one' fallback, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about which project is affected, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and resource ('every track with no clips on it') plus a scoping rule ('keeping one video track'). This clearly separates it from the singular remove_track and from close_gaps, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 cleanup intent is implied by 'track with no clips on it', so an agent can infer when to reach for it. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of remove_track as the alternative for removing a specific track, and no prerequisites stated.

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