remove_send

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the schema contains a confirm_delete flag, a dry_run flag, and an expected_revision guard that the description never mentions. "Explicit delete intent" vaguely gestures at confirmation without explaining that the caller must opt in, that a dry run is available, or what happens on a revision conflict.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. "With explicit delete intent" is a vague phrase that consumes space without conveying actionable information.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with a nested confirmation/guard schema and no parameter documentation, so the description carries the burden of explaining the safety workflow and does not. Output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the confirmation and dry-run protocol an agent needs before calling it 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 0% and the single request object nests five fields, none documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for confirm_delete, dry_run, or expected_revision, which are exactly the fields carrying safety semantics; only track_id/send_id are self-evident from their names.

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?

"Remove send" names a verb and resource, so an agent can tell it deletes an audio routing send rather than a track or plugin. But the qualifier "with explicit delete intent" adds no distinguishing information, and the description never clarifies how a send differs from related removal siblings such as remove_track_from_group. Purpose is inferable, not stated precisely.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_send, set_send_gain, or other removal tools, and no stated preconditions. The phrase "explicit delete intent" hints that caution is required but never specifies the condition that must hold.

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