delete_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter, but fails to mention important traits like irreversibility, potential side effects (e.g., deleting contains clips), or any safety warnings. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, consisting of a single clear sentence followed by a compact parameter explanation. Every word adds value, and the structure is well front-loaded with the action then the argument. No wasted content.

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 basics: what it does and the required parameter. An output schema is present so return values are presumably defined, but key contextual details for a destructive tool are missing, such as whether the deletion is permanent, if there are constraints (e.g., cannot delete the last track), or what happens to dependent clips. This leaves the tool minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 only lists 'track_index' with an integer type and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining the parameter as 'Zero-based index of the track to delete.' This crucial addition removes ambiguity about indexing and is directly actionable for the agent.

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 tool's action: 'Delete a track from the session.' It uses a specific verb ('delete') and a clear resource ('track'), distinguishing it from sibling deletion tools like delete_scene or delete_arrangement_clip. The scope is unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., track existence, selection requirements) or scenarios where another deletion tool might be more appropriate. The description focuses only on what the tool does, not when to use it.

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