Delete track

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious operational requirement of user confirmation and the ownership restriction implied by "own". It stops short of stating that the deletion is permanent or what happens to the track in sets/playlists.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive action is stated before the confirmation instruction. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations already disclosing destructiveness, the description covers the essential extra: ask for confirmation and only own tracks qualify. Only the irreversibility and downstream effects on sets/playlists are 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 parameter track_id is never mentioned, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented schema. An agent must infer that track_id identifies the track to delete purely from the tool name.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("Deletes an own track") with an ownership scope qualifier that distinguishes it from the neighboring delete_comment, delete_set, and delete_group tools. It does not explicitly say how it differs from remove_track_cover or remove_from_set, but the name plus scope makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

Provides one concrete procedural rule ("Ask the user for confirmation first"), which is real guidance for a destructive call. However it says nothing about when to prefer an alternative (e.g. removing a track from a set vs deleting it outright) or any preconditions like ownership.

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