Delete a device or rack from an Ableton Live track or chain and return the remaining devices. Confirm before deleting user work; undo reverts it.
Delete a device (a rack with everything in it) from its track or chain; returns what remains.
Destructive: confirm with the user before deleting their own work (undo reverts it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | ||
| device | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the deletion is cascading ('a rack with everything in it'), it is reversible via undo, and it returns what remains. That reverses the usual opacity of a destructive op and is genuinely useful for a mutation.
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 tight sentences: the core action and scope come first, followed by the destructive caveat. No wasted words, though the destructive note could be folded more economically.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what gets removed, its reversibility, and return behavior ('returns what remains'). The only missing piece is parameter format detail, which is the remaining incompleteness.
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 0%, so both required parameters (track, device) carry no documented meaning. The description hints that track is the container and device the target, but never explains the integer|string id formats or that device may be an array, leaving a real gap it should have filled.
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 and resource ('Delete a device') and clarifies scope by defining a device as 'a rack with everything in it' and locating it 'from its track or chain'. This distinguishes it from delete_track, delete_clip, and delete_scene without the agent needing to inspect other schemas.
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?
Gives clear when-to-use guidance by flagging it as destructive and instructing the agent to confirm with the user before deleting their own work, plus notes that undo reverts it. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives (e.g., device_action or undo) as routing options, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.