delete_track

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

The description only says 'Delete' without detailing behavioral traits such as whether the operation can be undone, whether all clips on the track are deleted, or if there are side effects on other tracks. With no annotations, the description should disclose these important details.

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 a single sentence, which is efficient. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or sections to improve readability or highlight important details.

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?

Given the tool is destructive (delete operation) with no output schema and two required parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not address error handling, return value, or edge cases (e.g., invalid index).

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 description mentions 'at the given index' but does not clarify the indexing scheme (0-based vs 1-based) or the valid range for the track_index parameter. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to add meaningful semantic context.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('track') with a specific qualifier ('at the given index'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_return_track' or 'delete_scene'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'delete_return_track' or 'duplicate_track'). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the track index being valid or the operation being irreversible.

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