Remove a specific segment from a dubbing project transcript by project ID and segment ID. Use it to correct or clean up dubbing transcripts when a segment is no longer needed.
Delete Dubbing Transcript Segment
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Identifier of the dubbing project. | |
| segment_id | Yes | Identifier of the segment to remove. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing about permanence, whether surrounding segment timings shift, or required permissions on top of that structured data. No contradiction, but no added value either.
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 a single short phrase with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Being short is not itself a virtue when no information is conveyed.
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 mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum state that the segment is permanently removed and what context it affects. The annotations carry the safety signal, but the agent still lacks confirmation of scope and irreversibility from the description.
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% for both parameters (project_id, segment_id), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description contributes no additional meaning, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 is a restatement of the tool title, adding no detail beyond the name itself. It identifies no scope, no distinguishing behavior from the many sibling delete tools (delete_segment, delete_transcript_by_id, dubbing_project_delete), so an agent must open the schema to know what it operates on.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Nothing tells the agent how this relates to dubbing_transcript_segment_update, dubbing_transcript_segments_update, or delete_segment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.