Remove track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cascading destruction (channels, clips, regions), the side effect on track ids, and that audio files are preserved. It omits error behavior and whether the project file is written to disk immediately, but the essential mutation semantics are 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, followed by the id-shift caveat and the reassuring file-preservation detail. No filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, and non-destructive aspects of the operation. It does not address failure modes or return values, but the critical information an agent needs before calling it is present.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining that track ids are positional indices in the track list and that ids below the removed track shift up by one. That directly informs how to interpret and reuse the 'track' parameter.

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 a whole track') and immediately scopes what that encompasses (channels, clips, regions), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_clip and remove_channel.

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 destructive scope is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as remove_clip or remove_channel, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., project must be open/valid). Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement.

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