atem_delete_lookDelete a saved Super Source look by name to remove unused or outdated looks from your ATEM switcher configuration.
Delete a previously saved Super Source look.
Args:
name (string): Name of the look to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the saved look to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the target is a Super Source look; it does not say what happens if the name does not exist (error vs silent no-op), which matters for a destructive operation.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence with no padding. The trailing Args block duplicates the schema and is the only wasted text.
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 one-parameter delete whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, the description is adequate. It stops short of describing failure behavior on an unknown name, which is the main remaining gap for a destructive tool.
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 a single required parameter already documented as 'Name of the saved look to delete'. The description's Args block merely restates it, adding no format, case-sensitivity, or lookup-behavior detail.
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 specific verb (delete) and resource (a previously saved Super Source look), so the agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling look-management tools (atem_save_look, atem_load_look, atem_list_looks), though the verb makes the distinction obvious.
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 of when to use this versus atem_save_look or atem_load_look, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'previously saved' implies the look must already exist, but that is inference rather than guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.