Permanently remove a video and all associated indexed data, including transcripts, captions, and embeddings. This action cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a video and all its indexed data (transcript, captions, embeddings, etc.). This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes | ||
| rationale | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing permanence, irreversibility, and cascading removal of indexed data. This exceeds what the annotations alone reveal without contradicting them.
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 focused, front-loaded sentences: the first states the operation and its full impact, the second warns about irreversibility. No extraneous 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?
The description covers the destructive nature and the data affected, and output schema plus annotations carry some burden. However, with zero schema coverage, the description should have at least pointed to the required video_id parameter and explained the optional rationale, which it does not.
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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the video_id or rationale parameters. No additional meaning is provided beyond the bare parameter names in 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?
States a specific action ('Permanently delete a video') and resource scope ('all its indexed data'), listing concrete data types (transcript, captions, embeddings). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like update_video or delete_group.
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 effect of the tool is clear, but the description only implies when to use it by saying 'delete a video.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used, such as when only removing a video from a group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.