tracks_delete

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations: it enumerates what is destroyed (clips, devices, automation), discloses a side effect on sibling data ('indices of later tracks shift down'), and states reversibility plus undo fidelity ('undo rebuilds the whole track, instrument state included'). That is exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its scope, then the group exception, then the collateral index shift, then undoability. No filler and nothing repeated from annotations or schema.

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?

Single parameter fully documented in the schema, rich annotations, no output schema needed for a delete. The description covers destruction scope, exclusions, side effects and recoverability — everything required to 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 coverage is 100% and already explains id vs 0-based index, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: that indices of later tracks shift after the delete, which materially affects how an agent should reason about the index form of the `track` 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?

Specific verb and resource ('Delete a track') with the full destruction scope spelled out: clips, devices, automation. It also carves out what it does not do ('Groups are not deleted this way'), which cleanly separates it from tracks_move, tracks_duplicate and family.

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?

Provides a concrete when-not condition ('groups... ungroup first') that prevents a misuse an agent would otherwise likely make. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool for group removal, but the required prerequisite action is stated clearly.

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