delete_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral nuances: the open-sequence requirement, the QE DOM fallback, the risk of reporting by name rather than deleting, and the unsupported caption track behavior. This is thorough and transparent.

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 a bit dense but each sentence contributes valuable information—scope, prerequisites, fallback behavior, and limitations. It is efficiently structured without redundancy, though slightly long for a high-level alert.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essential operational constraints and failure modes. It does not explicitly state the return format or success/failure indicators, but the behavioral details are sufficient given the complexity.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the caption track limitation and clarifies the sequenceId source, but these are more behavioral than parameter-specific. It does not significantly improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the action: deleting a video or audio track from a specified sequence. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from related tools like add_track or ripple_delete by focusing on track deletion.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: the sequence need not be active but must be open, and explains the fallback to QE DOM and the unsupported caption track case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for deleting tracks in other contexts or contrast with similar operations.

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