track_fx_delete

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true already signals the destructive nature, and the description's 'Remove' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no extra context beyond the annotation—no mention of permanence, undo behavior, or what happens to the plugin after removal. With the annotation covering safety, a 3 is appropriate for not contradicting and simply aligning with the hint.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the action directly and is appropriately sized for a simple removal operation. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple two-parameter delete with a destructive annotation, the description is minimally acceptable but lacks essential operational details. It does not explain the effects (e.g., that the plugin is removed from the track's FX chain), nor does it clarify the relationship between track_index and fx_index. Without an output schema or additional parameter context, an agent might call it correctly but without assurance about post-condition behavior.

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 for parameter meaning. It does not mention track_index or fx_index at all, leaving the agent to rely on the parameter names. While these names are fairly inferable (indices into track and FX lists), the description provides no additional clarity on indexing (zero/one-based), valid ranges, or error conditions. This is a significant gap given the zero coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'FX plugin from a track', making the primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like take_fx_delete, but the name 'track_fx_delete' and the phrase 'from a track' inherently separate it from take-level removal, so it is still specific.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when this tool should be chosen over related tools (e.g., track_fx_set_enabled for toggling, or take_fx_delete for take FX), nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for use. An agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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