delete_session_object

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds that Return deletion exposes its devices and affected track-send lanes, and that content deletion needs 'explicit content authority.' This gives useful insight into side effects and mode-dependent behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 no filler: the first states action, resource, and a key condition; the second flags an important behavioral edge case for Return Tracks. The structure is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 destructive multi-parameter tool, the description covers the core plan/delete duality and the notable Return-deletion side effect. It leaves concurrency and token mechanics to the schema, which is acceptable since those are already documented; but a direct mention of the required dryRun-to-token flow would have made it more self-contained.

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?

With schema description coverage at 88%, the schema already explains most parameters in detail. The description adds only loose hints like 'explicit content authority' mapping to allowContent and the plan/delete concept mapping to dryRun/confirmationToken, but doesn't materially expand on the individual parameter meanings.

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 names a specific verb ('Plan or delete'), a precise resource set ('exact track, Return Track, scene, or Session clip'), and a distinguishing qualifier ('explicit content authority'). It differentiates from sibling tools like delete_clip or delete_arrangement_clip by covering multiple session-object types and mentioning the return-track-specific side-effect disclosure.

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 implies a two-phase dry-run/confirm workflow via 'Plan or delete' and scopes to session objects via 'Session clip,' but it never explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives like delete_clip or delete_arrangement_clip, nor states prerequisites like expectedStateVersion or confirmationToken. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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