Delete all points from a specified REAPER envelope to clear automation data and reset parameters for mixing or editing.
Delete all points from an envelope.
Args: envelope_name: Envelope name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| envelope_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is destructive ('delete all points'), but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the envelope itself is removed or just emptied, or permission/state requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
Very short and front-loaded. The purpose sentence is efficient. The args list restates only one of two params, which is minimally useful structure rather than filler.
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?
A destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage requires the description to explain scope, alternatives, and parameters. It omits the required track_index and gives no safety or reversibility context, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 description documents only envelope_name, completely omitting the required track_index parameter. With two required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the gap.
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+resource: 'Delete all points from an envelope.' Clear and unambiguous. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like delete_envelope_point or clear_fx_envelope, but the 'all points' vs single-point distinction is reasonably implied.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as delete_envelope_point (for individual points) or clear_fx_envelope (for FX envelopes). The agent gets no routing help despite several closely related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.