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 — and it is exemplary. It reveals the internal fallback to QE DOM, the requirement that sequences be open in Premiere, and the safe-failure behavior of reporting an unaddressable sequence by name rather than deleting the wrong timeline. It also documents the caption-trace unsupported result and the API reason behind it. No annotations exist to contradict.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, followed by the precondition/fallback mechanic, and finally the special-parameter limitation. It is longer than average, but the length is justified because it conveys non-obvious operational constraints that the schema and annotations cannot. No fluff 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?

Given the tool's non-trivial preconditions (sequence must be open, QE fallback, caption-track unsupported) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the edge cases an agent would misuse. It falls short of 5 only because it doesn't describe the success return value or explicitly route the agent to sibling tools for the excluded cases.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a solid description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine extra meaning: it clarifies that trackType=caption is accepted by the schema but yields an explicit unsupported result, and it explains that sequenceId refers to a sequence that must be open (and how QE unaddressability is handled). This goes beyond the schema's literal field definitions.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a video or audio track from the specified sequence.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_sequence, remove_from_timeline, and add_track without needing to consult their schemas. The scope is precise: a track within a specific sequence, not a sequence or clip itself.

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 gives clear contextual prerequisites: the sequence need not be active but must be open in Premiere, and caption-track deletion is explicitly unsupported. However, it never names alternative tools or says when to prefer a sibling (e.g., delete_sequence for whole sequences, remove_from_timeline for clips, ripple_delete for clip removal). Usage context is implied rather than explicitly routed across alternatives.

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