Permanently 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. |
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 that the operation is permanent and irreversible, which is the most critical behavioral trait for a delete tool. It does not mention side effects on associated assets or permission requirements, but the core destructive nature is clearly conveyed.
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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and consequence, and the warning sentence earns its place by reinforcing irreversibility. Every word contributes to the tool's clarity.
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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: what is deleted and that deletion is permanent. It could mention what happens to the project's associated data or whether deletion is possible during processing, but such detail is arguably beyond what is needed for a straightforward delete. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
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 input schema already has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including a description that explains it is the unique ID returned by POST APIs. The description adds no parameter-level information, but because the schema is already comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('the rendered video'), making it unmistakably a delete operation. It implicitly differentiates itself from sibling create/retrieve tools and other delete tools by targeting video projects. Despite a slight wording mismatch ('rendered video' vs 'video project'), the intent is clear and unambiguous.
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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for removing a video project when it is no longer needed, nor does it exclude cases like still-processing videos. The warning 'please be sure before deleting' implies finality but does not help an agent decide when to call this versus another tool.
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.
