track_fx_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but nothing states whether it is undoable, whether an invalid index errors or no-ops, or whether remaining FX indices shift after removal—a critical behavior for a tool keyed by fx_index.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and target are stated immediately. It is efficient, though efficiency here partially reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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 destructive, index-addressed mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It should at minimum address undoability and index-shifting behavior to let an agent call it safely.

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 says nothing about either parameter. It does not clarify 0- vs 1-based indexing, whether fx_index refers to the position in the plugin chain, or how deletion affects subsequent indices—all of which the schema leaves undocumented.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Remove an FX plugin') with the scope qualifier 'from a track', which cleanly separates it from the sibling take_fx_delete (which operates on takes rather than tracks). It does not name an alternative tool, but the resource scope alone lets an agent disambiguate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as track_fx_get_list to find the right fx_index first. The agent must infer all usage context from the name and siblings.

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