Deletes a CapCut project folder and unregisters it from CapCut. Requires the project name or ID and explicit confirmation to prevent accidental loss.
Deletes a CapCut project folder and unregisters it from CapCut. Requires explicit confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be set to true to confirm deletion. | |
| project_name_or_id | Yes | Name or UUID of the project to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive scope (deletes folder, unregisters it) and explicitly requires confirmation. It stops short of stating that deletion is permanent or cannot be undone, but 'deletes' strongly implies this.
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 one tight sentence with no filler. The action, target, and safety requirement are all front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the target, the effect, and the necessary confirmation guard. Minor gaps remain around permanence and success/failure behavior, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool safely.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the confirmation requirement and adds no new detail about name_or_id format or confirm behavior beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Deletes') and a specific resource ('CapCut project folder'), and adds the unregister effect. This clearly distinguishes it from clip-level operations like capcut_remove_clip and from project-creation tools like capcut_create_project.
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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource, and the confirmation requirement is a safety prerequisite. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it name any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.