delete_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'delete track' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify permanence, confirmation requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid index), or side effects (e.g., impact on clips). This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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, efficient phrase ('delete track by index') with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning its place by stating the core action clearly.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: no mention of return values, error handling, or behavioral details like confirmation. The schema covers parameters well, but overall completeness is inadequate given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions: 'index' as an integer and 'type' with enum values. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as index range or type implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'delete track by index' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (track), with the 'by index' specifying the identification method. It distinguishes from siblings like 'duplicate_track' or 'create_track' by focusing on deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion-related tools (none are listed).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., track existence), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'duplicate_track' or 'set_track_property'. Usage is implied only by the action itself.

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