Track Remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait — that the deletion is undoable — which is useful context beyond the schema. But it omits permissions, what happens to associated clips/automation, and whether the project must be in a specific state.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the undo fact. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it is arguably too sparse for a tool with two undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description is incomplete for a destructive mutation with no annotations: it omits permissions, cascading effects, and parameter formats. Two required, wholly undocumented parameters compound the gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across two required parameters, the description provides no meaning for 'project' or 'track' — it doesn't explain expected formats, IDs vs names, or path syntax. The schema alone leaves both parameters completely undocumented.

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 specific verb (Delete) and resource (track), which is clear and distinguishes it from track_add and track_set among siblings. It does not, however, clarify scope (e.g., whether it removes all clips or just the track lane).

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?

No guidance on when to use track_remove versus alternatives like fx_remove or project_new, nor any prerequisites (e.g., project state, permissions). The undo note is a behavioral fact, not a usage guideline.

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