remove_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the core action. It does not mention that removal is likely permanent, whether associated clips or mixer channels are affected, or whether track indices renumber after removal. No error or edge-case behavior is described.

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 two short sentences plus a one-line Args block, with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the parameter note is compact and directly useful.

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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and the single parameter is explained, so the missing return-value details are not a concern. However, the description omits usage context and destructive side effects, and with many track-related siblings, an agent gets minimal help deciding this is the right tool or understanding the consequences of calling it.

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?

The schema provides only an integer type with no description (0% coverage), so the description's 'Zero-based index of the track to remove' adds essential semantic meaning. It clarifies the indexing convention and the parameter's referent. While it does not cover ranges or track types, it is substantial for a single-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a track by its index.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_instrument_track, add_sample_track, delete_clip, and remove_effect, since removing a track is a unique operation. The scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to identify this as the removal action for tracks.

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 guidance on when to use remove_track versus alternatives such as delete_clip or remove_effect. The description only states the action, leaving selection entirely to inference from the tool name. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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