remove_textPROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Remove one text element by its id (see get_edl) — including one placed behind the subject.
| 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?
The description claims a destructive action ('remove') while the annotation destructiveHint is false, which is a direct contradiction. It also does not explain any side effects or irreversibility beyond what the annotations already state, and the contradiction makes the tool unsafe for an agent to interpret correctly.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the critical scope constraint, and includes the special case without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient.
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, it covers the essentials: what is removed, how to get the id, and the project scope. However, the contradiction between 'remove' and destructiveHint=false undermines completeness, and the description does not address behavior on missing ids or idempotency (though the annotation does). Given the contradiction, an agent would be uncertain about side effects.
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 description adds meaning to the 'id' parameter by referencing get_edl, which is not in the schema. For 'project_id', the schema already provides a detailed description, and the description reinforces the project-scoped behavior. With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for the undocumented 'id' parameter.
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 'text element', and the specific identifier 'id' with a reference to get_edl. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_overlay or remove_blur by explicitly mentioning 'text element' and the special case of elements 'behind the subject'.
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 a prerequisite ('see get_edl') for obtaining the id, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over other remove_* siblings. The scope is clear, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance or naming of alternative tools.
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.