Remove track

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

While annotations already establish that this is destructive (destructiveHint: true), the description adds valuable detail by listing exactly what gets removed: notes, clips, mixer channel, effects, plugins, and automation. This goes beyond the annotation and informs the user about the cascading impact, which is essential for a destructive operation.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists impacted elements efficiently. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler, achieving high clarity in a compact form.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's scope. It does not cover potential side effects like undo behavior or error conditions, but these are not required given the annotations and simplicity. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand what will happen.

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 input schema has a single required parameter, trackId (string, minLength 1), with no description in the schema. The tool description does not explicitly explain how to obtain or provide trackId, but the parameter name is self-explanatory. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal compensation, but the simplicity of a single identifier parameter keeps this at a viable baseline.

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 a specific action ('Remove a track') and enumerates the scope of the operation ('notes, clips, mixer channel, effects, plugins, and related automation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_audio_clip or remove_effect, which target individual components, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool is for removing an entire track with all associated elements, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, there is no guidance like 'if you only need to remove a single clip, use remove_audio_clip instead.' The intended usage is inferred from the context rather than stated.

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