remove_blurPROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Remove one censor region by its id (see get_edl), or ALL censor regions when id is omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | Required immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply idempotent and non-destructive hints, so the description adds value by disclosing the project-scoped guarantee and the result behavior (returns project identity). It also explains the two modes of operation (one vs all), which is behavior beyond the raw schema.
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?
Two compact sentences, with the critical project-scoping constraint front-loaded. Every clause adds information: scope, id lookup, all-vs-one behavior, and return value. 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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: required id source, optional omission semantics, project scope, and return identity. The annotations cover idempotency and safety, so no critical context 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?
The schema documents project_id fully, but the id parameter is bare. The description compensates by explaining that omitting id means all regions are removed, and that ids come from get_edl. This adds essential meaning beyond the type-only schema entry.
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 ('remove') and resource ('censor region'), and clarifies that it can target one region by id or all regions when id is omitted. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling remove_* tools by naming the resource type (censor region) and the project-scoped behavior.
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 makes clear when to use the tool: for removing a single censor region (after looking up its id via get_edl) or all censor regions by omitting id. It provides a strong scoping condition (explicit project_id) and references the sibling for id discovery, though it does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives.
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.