delete_texttrack

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered by structured data. The description adds the confirmation requirement, which is meaningful behavioral guidance beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on permanence or side effects; given the existing destructive hint, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and object, then states the required confirmation flag. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of schema properties.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description, annotations, and fully documented parameters together provide everything needed to invoke it correctly. It names what is deleted, where it is deleted from, and the required confirmation. No critical context is missing.

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 schema has 100% description coverage: video_id, track_id, and confirm all have descriptions. The tool description adds no significant parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies. The confirmation statement aligns with the schema's confirm parameter but does not add new semantic value.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Delete a caption track from a video.' It names the resource (caption/text track) and the containing object (video), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_video, delete_chapter, or delete_comment. This is not a tautology and leaves no doubt about the tool's purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a caption track on a video should be removed. It also provides an important usage precondition: 'Requires confirm: true.' It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but no sibling tool duplicates this exact caption-track deletion function, so the context is sufficient.

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