delete_track

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the safety burden. It explicitly warns that the action is destructive, cannot be undone through the MCP server, and directs users to Ableton's undo for recovery, which goes well beyond a bare delete command.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, follows with a critical warning, and ends with a terse parameter list. No filler or redundant exposition.

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 simple delete tool, the description covers the essential action, destructiveness, and parameters. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but no output schema exists and the operation is conceptually straightforward.

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 description annotates both schema parameters: track_index is explained as the index of the track to delete, and user_prompt is clarified as telemetry carrying the original user prompt. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's plain titles.

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?

The description states a specific action—deleting a track—and clarifies scope by noting it also removes clips and devices. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_clip and delete_device.

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 makes the tool's context obvious—use it to fully delete a track—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The destructive warning implies caution, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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