Permanently delete the rendered audio file(s). This action is not reversible, please be sure before deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique ID of the audio project. This value is returned by all of the POST APIs that create an audio. |
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. It explicitly states the operation is permanent and irreversible, which is the most critical behavioral trait for a delete tool. It does not detail every side effect, such as whether associated metadata is also removed, but the core destructive behavior is clearly communicated.
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, focused sentence that leads with the core action, then adds the critical warning. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the resource, and the permanence. It could add a brief note about what happens to the underlying project or any related files, but the essential context for a safe call 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 the id parameter is already well documented with its source and example. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, 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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Permanently delete') and a specific resource ('rendered audio file(s)'). The audio scope distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like video_projects_delete and image_projects_delete without needing to inspect schemas.
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 verb 'delete' implies when to use this tool, and the irreversible warning signals caution. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of checking with audio_projects_retrieve_details first, and no comparison to alternative workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are differentiated by product-specific prefixes (e.g., lip_sync, text_to_video, image_upscaler), but the set contains many overlapping create_image/create_video tools, and generic editors like ai_image_editor_create_image and ai_video_editor_create_video blur boundaries with their more specific counterparts. Face/body swapping tools also occupy a similar conceptual space, requiring careful description reading to avoid misselection.
Names generally follow a descriptive snake_case pattern of feature plus action (e.g., text_to_video_create_video, image_projects_delete, wait_for_image_project). Minor inconsistencies like ai_face_editor_edit_image versus the dominant create_image suffix, and the mixed ai_ prefix usage across tools, prevent a perfect score.
44 tools is a large surface for an MCP server, even for a broad media-generation API. The count exceeds the 25+ threshold and creates a heavy selection burden, especially with over a dozen create tools for images and videos.
The surface covers the full create-to-download workflow for image, video, and audio: creation, status polling, wait helpers, fetch helpers, delete, and asset upload support. Minor gaps include no list/cancel endpoints and no general project search, but agents can complete core tasks without dead ends.
