Remove channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses that channel mappings and per-channel clip gains shift down and that the underlying audio files are not deleted. It omits reversibility, required permissions, and error behavior for out-of-range indices, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the action, then two short clauses on effects; no filler. The GUI analogy is compact and aids comprehension, though it is optional.

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 mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and its downstream effects adequately. It stops short of addressing failure modes or persistence, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 project/track/channel are already documented, including the 0-based indexing. The description reiterates the channel-index semantics but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes one channel ... from a track') plus the index base, and the scope phrase 'one channel' implicitly separates it from the sibling remove_track. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 never states when to use this versus remove_track, remove_clip, or cleanup_regions, and names no alternative or precondition. It is purely a behavioral description, leaving tool selection to inference.

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