Delete clips

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well past destructiveHint/idempotentHint: in-progress renders are stopped, deletions land on Deleted and are restorable for DELETED_RETENTION_DAYS, skipped ids are ignored (explaining the idempotency claim), and storage continues to be billed until purge_clip. It also documents the response payload, which no output schema provides.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then lifecycle, then return shape; no filler sentences. The trailing return-field enumeration is dense but pays for itself since there is no output schema.

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?

Covers action, side effects, recovery window, purge relationship, retry semantics and the full return object, compensating for the absent output schema. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: all clipIds must belong to a single live project, and ids already in the deleted state are silently skipped rather than erroring — behavior an agent needs to interpret results.

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 and resource with scope: 'Delete several clips of one live project in one step', and disambiguates from the singular sibling by calling out the batch/selection-bar semantics. An agent can distinguish it from delete_clip, delete_project and delete_asset without opening any schema.

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?

Names the recovery path (list_deleted, restore_clip, DELETED_RETENTION_DAYS) and the true-removal alternative (purge_clip), and notes that already-deleted ids are skipped so retries are safe. It does not explicitly say 'use delete_clip for a single clip', so one routing decision is left implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.