mcp_opendaw_delete_track

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the concrete behavioral outcome: 'Removes all regions, clips, and notes on that track.' This adds valuable context about the destructive scope. It also mentions 'Returns success or error' which is basic but useful. It does not cover undo behavior or side effects on sends/routing, but given the annotation, the bar is lower and the provided information is adequate.

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 three tightly written sentences: purpose, side effects, and parameter definitions. No redundant or irrelevant content. The parameter list is clearly formatted and every sentence earns its place. This is an appropriately sized and well-structured description.

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 two-parameter deletion tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, and parameter meanings. The destructiveHint annotation and output schema reduce the need to explain safety or return formats. It could additionally clarify that indices refer to current state or that deletion is permanent, but overall it is sufficient for effective use.

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 explicitly defines both parameters: 'unit_index: Audio unit index' and 'track_index: Track index within the unit.' Since the input schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), this parameter guidance compensates well. It could have added detail about indexing conventions (e.g., zero-based) or how to resolve indices, but the basic semantics are clear.

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 states 'Delete a track from an audio unit' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the scope by noting it 'Removes all regions, clips, and notes on that track.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_audio_unit (whole unit) and delete_region (individual content). The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to delete an entire track and all its contained data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer this is for track-level deletion rather than unit-level or region-level operations.

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