Remove a specific automation point from an FX parameter envelope by specifying track, FX, parameter, and point index.
Delete an automation point from an FX parameter envelope.
Args: point_index: Point index (0-based) to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fx_index | Yes | ||
| param_index | Yes | ||
| point_index | Yes | ||
| track_index | 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, so the description must add context beyond that. It only repeats the destructive nature implicitly and provides no additional behavioral detail (e.g., irreversible, shifts subsequent points, affects automation playback). This contradicts the annotation? No, it aligns, but falls short of enhancing transparency.
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 concise: two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then explaining the one ambiguous parameter. No fluff. It focuses limited characters on the key detail (point_index base).
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?
Given 4 required parameters, all undocumented in schema, and a destructive operation, the description is too thin. It doesn't clarify how the envelope is identified (track/fx/param indices) or provide usage example or prerequisites. Output schema absent, but return value not critical for a deletion tool. Should include more context for an agent to call correctly.
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 parameters are bare integers with no descriptions. The description only explains point_index as '0-based', which is valuable, but track_index, fx_index, and param_index are unexplained. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it only partially does. Baseline for low coverage is low, so 3 is fair.
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?
Description clearly states the action: 'delete an automation point from an FX parameter envelope', specifying the resource (FX parameter envelope) and the operation (delete). This distinguishes from similar siblings like delete_envelope_point and clear_fx_envelope, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for deleting automation points but does not explain prerequisites (e.g., envelope must exist) or contrast with clear_fx_envelope, delete_envelope_point, or get_fx_envelope_points. Description lacks exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.