delete_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the operation is destructive, cannot be undone via MCP, and adds the trial-license recovery nuance, which is valuable. It does not detail side effects on clips or return value, but the core risk is well communicated.

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, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the action and then add critical warnings. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main context: what it does, destructive nature, and a specific caveat about trial licenses. It does not explain error handling or success responses, but those are not expected given the lack of output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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 has one parameter (track_index) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its meaning, indexing base, or valid range. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any semantics beyond the schema, leaving ambiguity (e.g., zero-based vs one-based).

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 ('Delete a track from the session') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_clip and delete_device by targeting tracks 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to delete a track) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does provide context about destructive consequences, which helps with caution, but no clear guidance on when to choose this over other delete tools.

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