delete_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete a device' which implies a destructive action, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it is undoable, if it affects clips or audio routing, or if it deletes the device permanently). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: one sentence plus a bullet list of parameters. No redundant or filler content. Every line adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the operation, the description covers the core usage. However, it lacks edge-case guidance such as error behavior (e.g., when device index is out of range, or when device_name is ambiguous). For a destructive tool, more context on prerequisites or consequences would improve completeness.

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 meaningful detail beyond the schema: it specifies that track_index and device_index are 1-based, and clarifies that device_name is an alternative to device_index. This helps the agent understand how to choose between parameters. However, it does not explain what happens if both device_index and device_name are provided, or if neither is given (beyond the schema defaults).

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 'Delete a device from a track', specifying the verb (delete) and resource (device on a track). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_track or delete_clip by focusing on devices. No ambiguity about what it does, but it could explicitly mention it removes a single device, which is implied.

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 implies usage: you call it when you want to remove a device from a track. It provides parameter guidance (index vs name) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like disable_device or enable_device, nor does it state when not to use it. Because the tool is straightforward, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable but not exceptional.

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