Delete a track from a REAPER project by providing its zero-based index. Removes the track and its contents from the session.
Delete a track.
Args: track_index: 0-based track index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Delete a track' without disclosing side effects like deletion of items, automation, or undo behavior. No annotations are available to supplement, so the agent gets minimal behavioral insight.
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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words. The purpose and parameter are front-loaded in two short lines.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values or success indicators. It fails to provide completeness for a simple but destructive operation.
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 adds '0-based track index', which is not in the schema, providing useful semantics. However, it does not explain valid ranges or error handling for out-of-bounds indices.
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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'track', distinguishing it from sibling tools like track_create or track_rename which have different purposes.
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, such as prerequisites (e.g., track must exist) or warnings about irreversible nature. The description lacks any contextual usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.