delete_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action and how to select the track, but does not mention irreversibility, failure behavior for unknown track names/indexes, or side effects beyond deletion.

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-purpose opening sentence followed by a compact parameter list; every line adds useful information and no filler is present.

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 simple destructive tool with two parameters, the description is mostly usable, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, with no annotations it could be more complete by stating error handling or permanence, so it stops short of fully contextual.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that track_index is 1-based, 0 resolves by name, track_name is an alternative, and track_index takes priority when both are supplied. This adds substantial meaning, though the interaction between a zero index and the 'priority' rule is slightly underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and identifies the exact resource ('track from the Ableton session'), distinguishing it from sibling deletion tools targeting clips, devices, cue points, and scenes.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and purpose statement—use this when removing a track—but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Parameter-resolution guidance is present, but tool-selection direction is absent.

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