delete_return_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies destructiveness by saying 'delete,' but does not mention irreversibility, potential side effects (e.g., impact on sends or routing), or whether undo is possible. The phrase 'from the session' adds minor context, but overall the description is minimal.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action plus an Args section clarifying the parameter. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema details or 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 one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the purpose and parameter semantics, and the output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, the absence of usage guidelines and any behavioral warnings (e.g., reversibility) makes it only minimally complete for safe invocation.

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 description defines 'return_index' as 'Zero-based index of the return track to delete,' which adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type. This helps the agent know exactly how to specify the parameter, compensating for the 0% schema description 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 action: 'Delete a return track from the session.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'return track' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_return_track or get_return_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_track for regular tracks or conditions like whether a return track can be deleted while in use. The description merely states the operation without context or exclusions.

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