Permanently deletes a Speechify Web item using a signed-in browser session, with idempotency and optional existence checks to prevent duplicate or accidental removals.
Perform verified Speechify permanently delete item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| item_id | No | ||
| if_exists | No | error | |
| parent_id | No | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes | ||
| expected_updated_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "Permanently" is the only behavioral signal (irreversibility), with no mention of required permissions, whether the idempotency_key is mandatory, or what happens when the item does not exist.
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 single sentence is short but only because it conveys no information; it is under-specified rather than concise. Padding like "Perform verified" consumes the limited space without adding meaning.
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 mutation with six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine safety constraints, idempotency requirements, or expected behavior from this text.
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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Critical semantics such as the required idempotency_key, expected_updated_at (apparent optimistic concurrency), the if_exists error/use_existing enum, and name/parent_id are entirely undocumented.
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?
"Perform verified Speechify permanently delete item" mostly restates the tool name (speechify_permanently_delete_item) rather than describing the operation. The word "permanently" hints at irreversibility, but "Perform verified" is filler and the description never explains what an "item" is or how this differs from speechify_trash_item.
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 guidance is given. The implicit contrast between "permanently delete" and the sibling speechify_trash_item / speechify_restore_item is never stated, and there is no warning about when not to use it despite the destructive, irreversible nature implied by the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.