delete_projectPermanently removes a specified video project using its project_id, so you can clean up or discard projects you no longer need.
Delete a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, what happens to assets or dependent resources inside the project, or whether confirmation is required.
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 sentence is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness: it has zero informational payload beyond the title. There is no front-loading problem because there is nothing to front-load.
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 an irreversible destructive operation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the definition is far too thin. It omits consequences, prerequisites, and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name.
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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it provides no information about project_id — no format, no example, no note that it is required. The only hint is the parameter's self-explanatory name.
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 restates the tool name and title verbatim ('Delete a project.'), adding no specificity about what a project is or what deletion entails. An agent learns nothing beyond the name it already has.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned, even though sibling tools like delete_asset and get_project exist and could be confused in scope. The description gives no routing guidance whatsoever.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.