delete_track

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete a track' without mentioning irreversibility, side effects on clips/automation, or any confirmation mechanism. This is inadequate 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 extremely concise and well-structured, with a clear label for the parameter. No filler exists, and the format is scannable. However, it is under-specified, which slightly reduces the quality, but the conciseness itself is effective.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimal. It lacks information about return values (none defined in an output schema), reversibility, error behavior, and how it fits with related tools. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 description's parameter note ('The index of the track to delete') adds little beyond the schema's title 'Track Index'. It does not clarify whether the index is zero-based, which track list it references, or what happens for out-of-range values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate.

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') and the resource ('a track'), which is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_device, delete_clip, and delete_scene by specifying track, though it does not explicitly differentiate normal tracks from return tracks (delete_return_track exists as a sibling).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what conditions should be met before deletion, or whether it applies to all track types (e.g., audio, MIDI, return). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for correct invocation.

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