remove_editorial_graphicPROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Remove an editorial group and its caption suppression.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| 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?
Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the call is scoped strictly to the explicit project_id (never the active-project pointer) and it returns the project identity with its result. It also discloses the side effect of caption suppression. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this is supplementary but valuable.
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 tight sentences, with the scoping constraint front-loaded before the action. No filler, though the capitalized 'PROJECT-SCOPED' label is formatting rather than content.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by noting the project identity is returned. Combined with the scope semantics, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the 'id' parameter's meaning is left unaddressed.
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 coverage is 50%: project_id is richly documented in the schema, and the description reinforces its scoping role, but the required 'id' parameter is unexplained in both schema and description. Baseline 3 given the schema carries project_id.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Remove an editorial group and its caption suppression.' It is clearly distinguishable from the inverse sibling set_editorial_graphic and from the other remove_* graphic tools, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: a remove tool pairs with set_editorial_graphic, and the 'PROJECT-SCOPED' preamble hints at scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus other removal tools or any preconditions/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.