delete_track

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 and largely fails it. For a destructive, likely irreversible operation it says nothing about consequences (e.g. clips/automation on the track being lost), permission requirements, undo behavior, or what happens if the index is invalid. Only the track/return distinction adds any behavioral information.

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 short sentence with no filler and the verb front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity veers toward under-specification for a destructive tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves critical gaps for a destructive operation: irreversibility, side effects on contained clips, and index semantics. It is not sufficient on its own for an agent to call this safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does so only partially. It clarifies that the target may be a regular track or a return track (corresponding to the 'kind' enum), but gives no meaning for 'track_index' — whether it is zero-based, positional, or how returns are indexed.

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+resource ('Delete a track or return track'), and the mention of 'return track' hints at the kind parameter's scope. It does not differentiate this tool from its deletion siblings (delete_clip, delete_device, delete_scene), but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the correct tool for removing a track rather than a clip or device.

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