remove_notify_track

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it explains that deletion of a track also deletes its events and reindexes the rest, and it defines the save-failure contract (saved=false plus save_error). This is substantive behavioral context for a mutation tool, though it doesn't note permission or undo requirements.

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 tight sentences front-load the action and its side effects, followed by a compact Returns list. Every sentence earns its place, though the Returns block is slightly dense and could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (track_names, track_count, already_absent, saved, save_error), and the safety profile is covered by annotations while parameters are covered by the schema. Only a short note on prerequisites or reversibility 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description adds essentially no extra parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 (Remove) applied to a precise resource (a named notify TRACK) scoped to an AnimSequence, and immediately discloses the consequential side effects (events on it are deleted, remaining tracks reindexed). An agent can distinguish this from add_notify_track or get_notify_track_names 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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as remove_anim_notify, add_notify_track, or remove_anim_bone_track, and gives no prerequisites or conditions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and verb.

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