delete_imageDelete an image and both of its files from storage for good. There is no trash and no undo, so only do this when the person asked for it. An image still queued or compressing is refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The image's id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | No | The id of the image deleted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "deleted": {
+ "description": "The id of the image deleted.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: the deletion is permanent with no trash and no undo, and queued/compressing images are refused. This goes well beyond the annotation's boolean signal.
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?
Three concise sentences, with the core action front-loaded and every sentence adding crucial information: scope, permanence, permission trigger, and refusal condition. No filler.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, scope, irreversibility, when to use, and an operational refusal condition. The agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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 described as 'The image's id.' The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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?
Description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an image') and adds the exact scope ('both of its files from storage for good'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_image, list_images, and compress_images. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only when the person asked for it, and explicitly states a condition when it is refused (image queued or compressing). This covers both when and when-not to call the 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.