Delete a specific envelope point by index to remove unwanted automation data and refine the curve.
Delete an envelope point.
Args: envelope_name: Envelope name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| point_index | Yes | ||
| 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Delete' matches that hint. However, no additional behavioral context is provided—such as irreversibility, effect on automation, or whether the envelope point is removed from the active take or item. The description adds no value beyond 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 short, but under-specification is not conciseness. It fails to document two of three required parameters and provides no structural details. The single effective sentence does not earn its place because it omits critical 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?
With three required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description is critically incomplete. It leaves track_index and point_index unexplainedites, making it impossible for an agent to confidently construct a valid invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only lists 'envelope_name: Envelope name' without describing track_index or point_index, which are both required. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the function.
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 and resource: 'Delete an envelope point.' The name and description are consistent)Skip, and the sibling delete_fx_envelope_point is distinguishable by the 'fx' qualifier. Still, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from clearing envelopes or deleting FX envelope points, so it's not a 5.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_fx_envelope_point or clear_envelope. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.