video_projects_deletePermanently delete the rendered video. This action is not reversible, please be sure before deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique ID of the video project. This value is returned by all of the POST APIs that create a video. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / contextRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so irreversibility is largely covered by structured data. The description restates permanence and adds that it targets the 'rendered video' specifically, which is minor added value over the annotation but no information about auth requirements or side effects on assets.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the destructive annotation.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, this is largely sufficient. The only meaningful omission is what happens to associated assets or whether the project can be recovered.
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 100% and the schema itself explains the id, including where it comes from ('returned by all of the POST APIs that create a video'). The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (rendered video) with a clear scope qualifier. It is distinguishable from create/retrieve siblings by the verb, but it does not explicitly name the analogous destructive siblings (image_projects_delete, audio_projects_delete) to confirm the parallel.
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 only guidance is a caution ('please be sure before deleting'), which is a warning rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of prerequisites, of what happens to dependent resources, or of alternatives to deletion.
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.