Deletes an empty video or audio track from an Adobe Premiere Pro timeline by specifying the track type and zero-based track index.
Delete an empty track
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index, 0-based (V1 = 0, A1 = 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb "delete" communicates that this is a destructive mutation, but nothing is said about what happens if the track is not empty, whether the operation is undoable, whether remaining track indices shift, or what is returned.
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?
A single short sentence with zero padding and the key constraint front-loaded. It is efficient but under-specified rather than tight — the brevity reflects missing information, not disciplined editing.
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?
The tool is simple (two required params, no nesting, no output schema) so a lot is not needed, but a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage should at least state the "empty-only" precondition and the destructive/irreversible nature. Neither is present.
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% and both required parameters (trackType enum, 0-based trackIndex) are documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional meaning to either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Delete ... track") with the qualifier "empty", which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling remove_empty_tracks (plural) or add_tracks, so an agent cannot tell which deletion tool to pick from the description alone.
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 on when to use this versus remove_empty_tracks or any other track tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The word "empty" hints at a precondition but it is never spelled out as a rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.