Delete Animation Track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value but does not disclose that the operation is destructive and irreversible, whether keyframes are removed along with the track, or any permission/undo implications. 'Remove' only implies mutation without explaining consequences.

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?

One compact sentence states the action, identification modes, and return value with no filler. Information is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 description covers the essential purpose and return shape, and the schema handles parameter details. However, for a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from stating that deletion is permanent and affects the associated track data.

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 documentation covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a small grouping distinction between 'full path' and 'legacy param_id/component', but the individual schema descriptions already convey exclusivity and meaning for each parameter.

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 action ('Remove an entire CTrack') and the resource, and differentiates the scope from editing individual keyframes. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like delete_keyframe, but the whole-track wording makes the distinction apparent.

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?

The description explains how to identify a track (full path or legacy param_id/component) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like delete_keyframe or remove_entity. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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