delete

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint/idempotentHint; the description adds that one undo step reverses the delete, that the mandatory name guard yields GUARD_FAILED when the name no longer matches, and the untouchable-object rules (cue points, master track, last scene). This is behavioral context the agent could not get from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and target enumeration, then moves through destructive semantics, guard, and edge cases. Dense but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; the cue-point parenthetical is slightly convoluted but not padding.

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?

Covers target syntax, guard semantics, destructive/undo behavior, and the main refusal cases. With no output schema, it never states what a successful call returns (beyond the GUARD_FAILED error), which is the one remaining gap for a mutation 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 already 100%, yet the description still adds real meaning: the accepted address forms per object type, the exact `expect` payload shape ({"name": ...}), why the guard exists (index shifting), and the failure mode when it mismatches. That is well beyond the schema's terse 'What to delete'.

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?

Names a specific verb (Delete) plus every addressable resource type, with concrete path syntax for each ('tracks/N', 'returns/N', 'scenes/N', clip and arrangement paths). An agent can tell this apart from the sibling create/duplicate tools immediately.

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 explicit when-not conditions: cue points cannot be deleted, the master track cannot be deleted, a Set always retains one scene, and indices shift after create/delete so the object must be read first. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g. history for undo) but the preconditions are unusually clear.

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