delete_track

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known from structured data. The description adds genuine value by stating the operation is reversible via undo(), which annotations do not convey, but it says nothing about what happens to the clips, devices, or routing owned by the deleted track.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the recovery hint immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive semantics plus undo path are covered. The remaining gap is collateral impact — whether deleting a track also destroys its clips and devices — which matters for a destructive tool but is a modest omission.

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 carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It implies track_type has two modes (track vs. return track) but never names the parameter, its 'track' default, or the permitted values, and it says nothing about how track_index is interpreted (zero-based position, position among visible tracks, etc.).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a track or return track') and the second sentence adds a recovery path. It distinguishes the two deletion targets (regular vs. return track) directly in the text, though it does not contrast itself with nearby destructive siblings such as delete_device, delete_scene, or delete_clip.

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?

Usage is implicitly clear (call it to remove a track), and it usefully names undo() as the remediation when the deletion was a mistake. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no statement of which sibling to prefer for deleting clips or devices instead.

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