label_delete_regions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers. It discloses the timeline-closing behavior ('the labeled regions collapse rather than surviving unchanged') and operates on SELECTED tracks/selection. Not fully exhaustive (no mention of undo, permissions, or destructive permanence), but the core behavioral consequence is disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, how to prepare, single-Label alternative, and post-action verification. No waste.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is well-rounded: it covers the operation, prerequisites, the sibling alternative, and post-operation behavior. Slightly more could be said about permanence/reversibility, but it's largely complete for the tool's complexity level.

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 tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description has no parameters to explain. Per rubric, 0 params earns baseline 4. The description focuses on the state prerequisites (selection) rather than parameters, which is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource+outcome: 'Delete the audio under every label, closing the gaps.' It distinguishes this from label_delete_audio_at (single label) and label_cut_regions (cut vs delete). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Label every unwanted stretch... then remove them all in one pass' and warns to 'select the audio tracks and time range first.' Explicitly names label_delete_audio_at as the alternative for a single label. Also tells the user to re-run label_list afterwards.

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