delete_track

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the full blast radius (clips and devices are removed), the cascading side effect of deleting a return (sends to it are removed and later returns reletter), the master exclusion, and reversibility via undo. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers constraint, side effect, and caution in short sentences with zero filler. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers destruction scope, cascade effects, limits, and reversibility well. The remaining gap is how to specify the target track, which belongs in the description given the empty schema coverage.

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 single `track` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not compensate: it never says whether the value should be a track index, name, or position, nor how a 'return' is addressed. The integer|string anyOf is left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (delete_track), states the scope (regular or return track with all its clips and devices), and adds a hard constraint the agent must respect (master cannot be deleted). An agent can distinguish this from delete_clip, delete_scene, and delete_device without opening any schema.

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 operational context: it is destructive, the user should be asked to confirm before deleting their own work, and undo reverts it. It does not name an explicit alternative path when the agent should not delete, but the caution guidance is concrete and actionable.

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