remove_broken_tracks

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral details: 'soft-deleted (marked as deleted in the database, not permanently erased)' and 'removes them from all playlists.' It also includes a prominent danger warning: '⚠️ DANGER: This removes tracks from your rekordbox library!' This fully discloses the nature of the operation without contradicting the annotations.

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 yet comprehensive, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a critical workflow hint and a danger warning. The Args and Returns sections are clearly formatted, and every sentence provides necessary information with zero fluff. It earns a perfect score for structure.

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 destructive tool with annotations already indicating the safety profile, the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, how to use it correctly (after find_broken_tracks), what 'soft-delete' means, and what the return value contains. The presence of an output schema means no need to detail return fields, and the description barely leaves any gaps for the agent to ask about.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining track_ids as 'List of track IDs to remove.' More valuably, it implies via the workflow that these IDs come from find_broken_tracks, giving the user a source for valid inputs. While it doesn't specify the exact ID format, the parameter is a simple string array and the context is sufficient for correct use.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete tracks by ID and remove them from all playlists.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_track_from_playlist (which operates on a single playlist) and delete_playlist. It also references find_broken_tracks, further clarifying the intended target.

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 to 'Use find_broken_tracks first to identify which tracks to remove,' providing a clear workflow. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., 'don't use this for manual playlist cleanup'), the context is unambiguous. A minor addition about when not to use it would make it perfect, but it clearly implies the intended scenario.

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