delete_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Delete a track' without revealing consequences such as irreversibility, effect on clips, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a destructive action.

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 extremely concise, using only two lines to state the purpose and list the parameter. There is no fluff or repetition, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's destructive nature, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention success/failure signals, side effects, or any post-conditions, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It states that track_index is 'The index of the track to delete,' which clarifies it's an index, but does not specify zero- or one-based indexing, valid ranges, or behavior for invalid indices.

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 'Delete a track,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_clip, delete_scene, and duplicate_track by targeting a track specifically.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_clip or delete_scene. There are no prerequisites, such as requiring the track to be empty, nor any mention of undoability or confirmation.

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