Permanently delete a rendered audio project by its unique ID. This irreversible action removes the audio file from Magic Hour.
Permanently delete the rendered audio file(s). This action is not reversible, please be sure before deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique ID of the audio project. This value is returned by all of the POST APIs that create an audio. |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is permanent and irreversible, which is the most critical behavioral trait for a delete tool. It does not detail every side effect, such as whether associated metadata is also removed, but the core destructive behavior is clearly communicated.
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 description is a single, focused sentence that leads with the core action, then adds the critical warning. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the resource, and the permanence. It could add a brief note about what happens to the underlying project or any related files, but the essential context for a safe call is present.
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%, and the id parameter is already well documented with its source and example. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Permanently delete') and a specific resource ('rendered audio file(s)'). The audio scope distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like video_projects_delete and image_projects_delete without needing to inspect schemas.
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 verb 'delete' implies when to use this tool, and the irreversible warning signals caution. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of checking with audio_projects_retrieve_details first, and no comparison to alternative workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.