delete_all_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool deletes all but one track and returns a count, but does not mention whether the operation is reversible, if undo is supported, or any prerequisites (e.g., session vs arrangement context).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and use case, with no superfluous words. It earns its place efficiently.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema (likely returning the count), the description covers the main purpose and return value. However, it does not specify which track is preserved (e.g., first track or a default), which could be relevant context.

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 tool has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since there are none. A score of 4 reflects that no improvement is needed.

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 all tracks except one'), specifies the resource ('tracks'), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'delete_track' which handles single tracks. It also notes the return value.

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 provides a use case ('clearing a session before building a fresh arrangement') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, which track is preserved, or mention alternatives like possibly using 'delete_track' for selective removal.

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