Delete a specific segment from a CapCut project track by providing its segment ID and the project name or ID, enabling targeted clip removal during automated video editing.
Deletes a specific segment from a project track by its segment ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| segment_id | Yes | UUID of the segment to delete. | |
| project_name_or_id | Yes | Target project name or ID. |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the destructive nature and scope ('from a project track'), but it does not say whether deletion is permanent/reversible, whether adjacent segments are affected, or what happens if the segment ID is invalid.
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?
One sentence, action-first, with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the operation, the target resource, and the identifying key.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema fully defines the two required parameters, so an agent can construct a valid call. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no caveats about permanence or failure behavior, the description is only minimally 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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions segment_id as the deletion criterion, matching the schema, but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that.
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 uses a strong verb ('Deletes') and identifies the exact resource ('a specific segment from a project track') and lookup key ('segment ID'), so an agent can distinguish it from editing tools like trim or split and from delete_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?
No statement about when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to. It implies the use case through semantics but does not mention, for example, that capcut_trim_clip should be used to shorten a clip instead, or that the project must be open/openable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.