remove_vector_graphicPROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Remove one renderer-native vector graphic by id.
| 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 states 'Remove', which implies a destructive mutation, yet the annotations declare destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction. The description also adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, but the contradiction invalidates the transparency score.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the critical project-scoping constraint before the action. There is no redundancy or filler, making it maximally 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 two-parameter removal operation, the description covers the action, the required project_id scope, and the return value (project identity). It lacks explicit guidance on obtaining the id and edge-case behavior, but given the simplicity and existing schema description for project_id, it is reasonably complete.
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 only 50% (project_id has a description, id does not). The tool description does not explain the id parameter beyond implying it identifies the vector graphic, and it does not compensate for the missing schema detail. The agent is left guessing about the id's format or provenance.
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 action ('Remove'), the specific resource ('renderer-native vector graphic'), and the identifier ('by id'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying 'renderer-native' and the project-scoping constraint, making it unambiguous.
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 implies usage for removing vector graphics and mandates an explicit project_id, which is a clear usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling remove tools (e.g., remove_overlay, remove_text) or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on the name.
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.