snipaya_delete_itemsDelete images or annotations by ID in a Snipaya tab, with one undo step available. Use it to remove specific elements without clearing the whole canvas.
Delete elements (images or annotations) by id. One undo step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| tabId | No | Target tab id. Defaults to the active tab. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value with 'One undo step', telling the agent the deletion is reversible in a single undo — information not present in the annotations. It stops short of noting the 500-id cap or tab-scoping behavior, so it is not a 5.
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 short sentences with zero waste, and the core operation is front-loaded before the undo caveat. Every phrase carries information.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: it names the operation, the id keying and undo behavior. It omits batch-size limits, tab targeting, and behavior for non-existent ids, which an agent would need to call it confidently at scale.
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 only 50%: tabId is documented in the schema, but the required 'ids' array has no schema description. The description says 'by id' but never mentions that ids is a batch array, the 1–500 item bounds, or the tabId targeting default, so it does not 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 resource (elements, clarified as images or annotations) with the keying mechanism (by id). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like snipaya_redact or snipaya_undo, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can tell it apart from the many add_* tools.
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?
Usage is implied by the operation (delete existing elements by id), and 'One undo step' hints at reversibility. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus snipaya_redact, snipaya_update_items, or snipaya_undo, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.