Removes a .evox song file from a songbook’s songs/ folder using the song slug; optionally provide the project directory.
Deletes a song (.evox file) from the songs/ folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug of the song to delete. | |
| project_dir | No | Songbook directory path (defaults to EVOX_PROJECT_DIR or cwd). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It does not state whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether confirmation is required, what happens if the slug does not exist, or whether the file is moved to a trash location.
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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. Every element (verb, resource, file type, location) 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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits irreversibility, failure behavior, and any confirmation expectations. The parameter surface is small and well documented, but the risk profile of the operation is not communicated at all.
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 100%, so both the required slug and the optional project_dir are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the songs/ folder gives minor context about where the file lives but adds no syntax, format, or validation meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a song") and adds the file type (.evox) and location (songs/ folder), so an agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as update_song or create_song, but the destructive verb makes the distinction obvious.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_song or any other sibling, nor any stated preconditions such as confirming the song exists first. The only implied usage is the tool's name itself, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.