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 declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: there is no trash/undo, both files are removed permanently, and queued/compressing images are refused. This goes well beyond the annotation alone.
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 short sentences, each providing necessary information: the action and scope, the permanence and caution, and an operational constraint. No filler or redundancy.
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 destructive tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers all essential context: what is deleted, permanence, user-request requirement, and refusal conditions. Nothing critical is missing.
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%, with the single 'id' parameter already documented as 'The image's id.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully carries that burden, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an image and both of its files'), and clarifies the permanent nature of the action. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_image or rename_image.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool ('only do this when the person asked for it') and when it will refuse to act (queued or compressing images). It does not name alternative tools, but for a destructive delete operation this is less necessary.
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.