Delete track

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing irreversibility ('Permanently delete ... Irreversible'), which escalates the risk profile from merely destructive to no-undo, and by requiring explicit user confirmation. The ownership prerequisite is also disclosed. No contradiction with idempotentHint=true, since deleting an already-deleted track has no further effect.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded in sentence one, and sentence two delivers the critical confirmation requirement. Every clause ('permanently', 'owned by the logged-in user', 'irreversible', 'explicit confirmation') carries load-bearing information.

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?

Complete for a 2-parameter delete tool: the schema covers both parameters at 100%, annotations carry the safety profile (destructive, not read-only, idempotent), and the description supplies scope, permanence, and the confirmation gate. Minor gap: no statement about error behavior for tracks not owned by the user, but idempotentHint partially mitigates the repeated-deletion edge case.

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 description coverage is 100%: both track (URN, numeric id, or URL formats) and account (alias/username/URN, default-account fallback, pointer to soundcloud_auth_status) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (delete), resource (track), and a meaningful scoping constraint ('owned by the logged-in user'). This goes beyond the title 'Delete track' and clearly separates it from siblings like soundcloud_update_track, soundcloud_set_track_storefront, and soundcloud_delete_playlist. The permanence qualifier adds precision.

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 clear context for invocation: this is the tool for permanently removing tracks the user owns, and the irreversibility warning adds an explicit usage condition — only after explicit user confirmation. It does not name alternatives or exclusions outright, but the sibling set (delete_playlist for playlists, update_track for mutations) makes the boundary obvious by naming convention.

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