Permanently delete a short creation request and all generated videos. Credits are NOT refunded. This action is irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestId | Yes | The request ID to delete (24-char hex). This action is irreversible and credits are NOT refunded. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It explicitly states the action is permanent, deletes associated videos, and credits are not refunded, which are critical operational consequences.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential warnings. Every sentence adds value without 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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and irreversibility. It is contextually complete for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke.
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 already covers the parameter fully with description and pattern, so the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states.
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 specifies the verb 'delete', the resource 'short creation request', and the scope 'all generated videos', clearly distinguishing it from sibling create/list/get tools.
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 clear context: it's for permanent deletion with irreversible consequences. The warning about non-refundable credits and irreversibility implicitly advises caution, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: create, delete, status, shorts retrieval, and separate list tools for each asset type (game videos, meme hooks, music, templates, requests). No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., create_short, list_music, get_status). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a clipping service: it covers creation, status, retrieval, deletion, request listing, and asset selection. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of short creation: create, check status, retrieve results, and delete. Additionally, all necessary asset list tools are present to support creation, leaving no obvious gaps.
