Permanently delete a dubbing project from your ElevenLabs account using its project ID. Removes the project and its associated data.
Delete Dubbing Project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Identifier of the dubbing project to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the important traits: destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds nothing beyond them — no note on irreversibility, cascade effects on transcripts/languages, or required permissions. With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but zero added context still warrants a low 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 short phrase with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. There is no front-loaded rationale or scope statement to structure.
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 destructive, open-world delete operation with no output schema, the description should at least convey consequences or prerequisites; it conveys none. The annotations supply the safety signal, but the surrounding context for a destructive mutation is thin.
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% and the single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description is not required to compensate. It adds no syntax, format, or sourcing hint beyond the schema, which lands at the baseline.
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 'Delete Dubbing Project' is a verbatim restatement of the tool name, which is the textbook tautology case. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like delete_dubbing, delete_project, or dubbing_language_delete, so an agent gets no help choosing among them.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related getter/creator siblings (dubbing_project_get, dubbing_project_create). The description provides literally no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.