remove_track

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; the description adds critical detail: deletion of auto-tasks, retry response structure, and idempotency. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single clear paragraph covering purpose, warning, requirement, and retry behavior without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values for fresh and retry calls, covers side effects and prerequisites, and is sufficient for a 2-parameter destructive tool.

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 50% (confirm has description, trackId lacks one). The description compensates by explaining confirm's role (deletes auto-tasks) and the retry responses, and implicitly defines trackId as the target.

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 and resource: 'Remove a track instance from its entity.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., apply_track, update_track) by focusing on removal and specifying idempotent behavior.

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 explicitly requires confirm=true and warns about deleting auto-tasks, advising to copy details beforehand. It mentions idempotency on retry, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like update_track.

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