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. It discloses that caption track deletion is accepted by the schema but returns an explicit unsupported result, which is a key behavioral trait. It doesn't discuss reversibility or side effects, but the operation is straightforward and the main edge case is covered.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each part earns its place. The second sentence adds a critical caveat without unnecessary detail.

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 three-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and the notable exception. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and constraints.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic context for the trackType parameter by noting that 'caption' is accepted by the schema but unsupported at runtime, which is valuable beyond the schema's simple enum description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Deletes' with a clear resource 'a video or audio track from the sequence', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_track or lock_track. It also clarifies the unsupported caption track case, adding precision.

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 use for removing video or audio tracks and explicitly warns against caption track deletion, providing a clear 'when not to use' scenario. However, it does not name alternative tools for other track operations, so it lacks full comparative guidance.

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