delete_track

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: deletion cascades to clips and devices, exactly one undo_last restores it, group tracks are rejected, and subsequent track indices shift down by one. These are the operational facts an agent most needs before firing a destructive call and they are not derivable from the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius, then the undo escape hatch, then the constraints and index caveat. No filler and no repetition of structured fields.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the cascade effect, recoverability, the group-track rejection, and the index-shift consequence that would otherwise cause silent wrong-target deletions. Only the indexing base remains unstated, which is a minor gap against an otherwise thorough behavioral picture.

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 0% for the single `track` parameter, so the description must carry the load. It hints that the value is an index ("later tracks' indices shift down by one") and points to get_set_overview as the source of truth, but it never states the indexing base or how to format the identifier, leaving the actual argument shape inferable rather than specified.

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 ("Delete a track") and immediately qualifies the scope by naming what is destroyed with it ("with its clips and devices"). This cleanly distinguishes it from delete_clip, which removes only a clip, so an agent can pick the right sibling without inspecting either 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?

Gives an explicit motivating use case ("free a track under Live Lite's 8-track limit"), an explicit refusal case ("Group tracks are refused"), and a concrete follow-up rule ("call get_set_overview again before the next delete"). The recovery path via undo_last is also named, so when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all covered.

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