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, or whose responsive sizes are still being made, 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?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: deletion is permanent, there is no trash or undo, both files are removed, and certain in-progress image states cause refusal. These details are exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.
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 three tight sentences, front-loading the permanent deletion and then adding the consent and refusal constraints. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers permanence, side effects, consent requirements, and state-based refusal without needing to explain return values.
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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single required id parameter, so it already documents the input fully. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond referring to "an image," which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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 and resource: "Delete an image" and clarifies that both of its files are removed from storage. This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as get_image, rename_image, or share_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 gives a clear usage condition: "only do this when the person asked for it." It also states when deletion is refused, namely while an image is queued, compressing, or still generating responsive sizes. It does not name alternatives, but there is no obvious sibling alternative for permanent 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.