track_remove

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Remove' clearly signals a destructive action on selected tracks, but the description adds little beyond the tool name and does not mention undoability, confirmation behavior, or consequences for track content. The selection precondition is useful but primarily supports usage rather than behavioral transparency.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with the only prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the necessary precondition. It could add a brief note about undoability or permanent deletion, but given the simplicity and sibling context, the definition is nearly sufficient as-is.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers this fully with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the prerequisite about selecting tracks is the relevant input-state semantics. This aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('currently selected track(s)'), and differentiates itself from selection tools like track_select by making clear it operates after selection. It also implicitly distinguishes from edit_delete by targeting tracks rather than audio regions or selections.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to select tracks first with track_select, giving a clear precondition for correct usage. It does not explicitly name alternative deletion tools or state when not to use it, but the zero-parameter, selection-based design makes the usage context mostly unambiguous.

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