remove_stylizePROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Remove one stylize effect by its id (see get_edl).
| 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?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the project-scoping behavior and that it returns the project identity with the result, which is useful but not rich. It does not mention side effects or failure modes, but the annotation set lowers the burden.
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 one concise sentence with a front-loaded 'PROJECT-SCOPED' qualifier. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.
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 removal tool with two parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: project scoping, the return value, and where to get the id. Given the annotations and the simplicity of the operation, it is adequate. Missing details like error handling or side effects on other effects are minor.
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 50% (project_id has a detailed description). The description adds a pointer to get_edl for the id parameter, which helps locate the value but does not explain its format or meaning beyond that. It partially compensates for the undocumented id parameter but not fully.
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 clearly states the verb (remove), the resource (stylize effect), and the specific action (by its id). It also notes the project-scoped nature, which distinguishes it from other removal tools like remove_custom_filter. The reference to get_edl for finding ids adds precision.
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 provides usage context (project-scoped, explicit project_id, see get_edl for id) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like remove_custom_filter or specify when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, and there are no exclusion conditions.
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.