Delete selected timeline items in DaVinci Resolve after explicit user approval. Prevents accidental removal by refusing unless approved in the current conversation.
Delete timeline items. Refuses unless the user explicitly approved this destructive action in the current conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ripple | No | ||
| item_ids | Yes | ||
| user_approved | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is destructive and that it enforces user approval within the conversation. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond simply stating 'Delete'. It does not mention ripple behavior or undo, but the core safety behavior is covered.
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?
Two sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical approval requirement is stated immediately. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with no annotations and three parameters (including a boolean 'ripple' that modifies behavior), the description is too sparse. It does not cover the ripple parameter's effect, how to supply approval via user_approved, any side effects, or output specifics. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without inspecting the schema or guessing.
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 compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain item_ids, ripple, or user_approved. The approval requirement is implied but not connected to the user_approved parameter. With three parameters and zero schema docs, this is a significant gap that could lead to misparameterization.
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 'Delete timeline items' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'delete_marker' which targets markers. The scope is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
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 description states a critical usage constraint: it refuses unless the user explicitly approved the destructive action in the current conversation. This gives clear context on when the tool can be invoked. It does not mention alternatives, but the only close sibling (delete_marker) is distinct enough, so no explicit direction is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.