Deletes a single segment from a dubbing project using its dubbing ID and segment ID. Use it to remove specific segments when editing or cleaning up dubbing projects.
Deletes A Single Segment Deprecated upstream.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dubbing_id | Yes | ID of the dubbing project. | |
| segment_id | Yes | ID of the segment |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The one addition beyond structured data is "Deprecated upstream," which is genuinely useful but unexplained (no replacement, no timeline). It also fails to state what exactly gets destroyed or any permission requirements, so it only modestly exceeds the annotations.
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?
It is short, which is good, but the two clauses are jammed together ("Deletes A Single Segment Deprecated upstream") with odd title-casing and no punctuation or clear separation. The deprecation note is not front-loaded or clearly flagged, reducing scannability.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the parameters, so the essentials are present. What is missing is the deprecation story (alternative tool, migration path) and any indication of blast radius, so the description is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, with both required parameters (dubbing_id, segment_id) documented in the schema itself, so the description carries no additional burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 concrete verb and resource ("Deletes A Single Segment"), so the basic action is clear. However, it never says which kind of segment (dubbing transcript segment, chapter segment, etc.) despite the sibling list containing dubbing_transcript_segment_delete, dubbing_target_transcript_segment_update and migrate_segments. Without that scoping it is hard to separate from its siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no named alternative or exclusion are given. The fragment "Deprecated upstream" hints the tool may be unsafe to adopt, but it is cryptic and doesn't point the agent at a replacement or state conditions under which this tool should still be called.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.