Remove a track from a podcast multitrack project using its track ID, with optional project path, to delete unwanted audio tracks.
Remove a track from the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_id | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "track_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "track_id"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about reversibility, undo support, required permissions, or what happens to clips/edits on the removed track. For a destructive mutation this is a significant omission.
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?
A single tight, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is the right shape. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool, but there is no wasted wording.
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?
A destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to explain consequences, permissions, and parameter meaning. Instead it offers one bare sentence, leaving the agent without the context to call it safely.
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 coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing: the required track_id is only implied by 'a track', and the optional project_path (default null) is never mentioned at all. Neither parameter's format or resolution behavior is explained anywhere.
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 (remove) and resource (track) scoped to the project, which is enough to distinguish it from track_add, track_add_empty_tool and track_reorder_tool. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or clarify what 'remove' means for a track holding clips.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ripple_delete_tool or delete_clips_tool for removing content. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this deletes a whole track rather than clips within it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.