Deletes a terminal podcast take, refusing the action while its full-quality recordings are still saving to the project.
Delete a terminal take (refused while its full-quality recordings are still saving to the project).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| take_index | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "take_index"
-]New value: +[
+ "take_index"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuine behavioral fact: the operation is refused while recordings are still saving. It does not state whether the deletion is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to already-rendered audio – gaps that matter for a destructive operation. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the constraint. No filler and nothing redundant.
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, take-oriented tool with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves out what an agent most needs: origin of take_index, default behavior of project_path, and reversibility. The refusal rule is the only substantive detail supplied.
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% for both parameters. The description never explains what take_index means (0-based? index into the session's take list?) or how project_path defaults or behaves when omitted. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 a specific resource (a terminal take), with the parenthetical narrowing the scope to takes that have finished recording. An agent can distinguish this from record_stop_tool, record_land_tool and record_state_tool, though the description never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.
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 parenthetical gives one precondition for use (not while full-quality recordings are still saving), which implies when the call is valid. However, there is no guidance about when to discard a take versus landing or stopping it, nor which sibling to prefer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.