Delete Track

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical context beyond them: the tool is EXPERIMENTAL, relies on undocumented QE DOM calls, verifies the exact track removal, preserves remaining tracks' clips/names/lock/mute state, and refuses clip-bearing tracks unless force is true. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the experimental warning, then the core action and verification, then the force condition. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the experimental nature, verification guarantee, side effects on remaining tracks, and the force option. Nothing an agent needs to call this destructive tool correctly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the force behavior ('Refuses a track that still holds clips unless force is true') which is already well covered by the schema's force description ('Also delete a track that holds clips, removing those clips'). No additional meaning is added for track_type or track_index.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a video or audio track from the active sequence') and adds implementation detail ('through QE'). Distinguishes itself from siblings like add_track and remove_from_timeline by targeting a whole track, not clips or sequences.

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 a clear when-not condition: it refuses a track that still holds clips unless force is true. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., remove_from_timeline for clips vs. delete_track), but the context is sufficient to route correctly for most cases.

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