delete_itemDelete a project item such as a comp, footage, or folder by ID. Refuses items used inside comps or non-empty folders unless force is true, which also removes dependent layers.
Delete a project item (comp, footage or folder) by id. Refuses items that are used in comps, and non-empty folders, unless force is true (force also deletes the layers that use the item).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | ||
| item_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — refusal conditions and the cascading side effect that force also deletes layers using the item. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about error responses or permission requirements.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and target, then appends the conditional/override semantics. No filler, nothing repeated.
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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what gets deleted, when it is refused, and what force expands the blast radius to — everything an agent needs before invoking it. Remaining details (idempotency, errors) are either annotation-covered or non-essential.
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 must carry the load. It fully explains force, including its cascading effect, and item_id is understandable from 'project item ... by id'. It is not a perfect substitute for schema-level documentation of id semantics, but it does compensate well.
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 (project item) and enumerates the item kinds it covers (comp, footage, folder), which implicitly separates it from the sibling delete_layer. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_layer, so it falls just short of the top band.
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?
Gives real conditional guidance: deletion is refused for items used in comps and for non-empty folders, and force overrides that. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g. delete_layer, set_item) for those cases, so no explicit alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.