Remove a track and all its contents in REAPER, with an undoable action that asks for confirmation first. Provide the track number or exact name to proceed.
Deletes a track and everything on it (undoable). Confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | Track number, or its exact name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds two things beyond that: the cascading scope ('everything on it') and reversibility ('undoable'), plus the confirmation requirement. That said, it doesn't state return behavior or whether undo history/automation is affected.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the caveat. Every clause earns its place with zero waste.
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 single-parameter, irreversible-looking mutation whose destructive nature is already flagged by annotations, this covers scope, reversibility, and a confirmation step. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., whether the removal frees sends/routing or affects undo history), which are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the track parameter documented as 'Track number, or its exact name'. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (Deletes) and resource (a track), and clarifies scope with 'everything on it'. This distinguishes it cleanly from the many sibling deletions (delete_item, delete_sound, delete_marker, delete_note, etc.) that target different resources.
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 instruction 'Confirm with the user first' gives a clear invocation precondition, which is real guidance. However, it never names alternatives (e.g., remove_fx, freeze_tracks, or simply muting) or explains when deleting a track is preferable to those, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives dimension is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.