Permanently delete a rendered image project by its unique ID. This action is irreversible, so verify before deleting.
Permanently delete the rendered image(s). This action is not reversible, please be sure before deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique ID of the image project. This value is returned by all of the POST APIs that create an image. |
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, and it does so effectively by explicitly stating the action is permanent and not reversible. This is critical information for an agent deciding whether to proceed.
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 deliver the core action and the key warning without any redundant detail. The irreversibility warning is front-loaded immediately after the action statement, making the risk impossible to miss.
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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential semantics: what is deleted and that it is permanent. It does not describe return values or post-delete state, but the low complexity and complete schema make the definition reasonably complete.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including an example and a clear explanation of where the value comes from. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and a specific resource ('rendered image(s)'), clearly distinguishing this tool from audio/video delete and retrieve siblings. It also reinforces permanence, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as image_projects_retrieve_details or wait_for_image_project. The destructive nature is clear, but the description does not state the intended workflow position or caution the agent to verify the id before deleting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.