Delete a specific saved generation from a CreatorOS project using the project ID and generation ID, permanently removing it from your stored content.
Delete one saved CreatorOS generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| generation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Delete' and does not state that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether associated data is removed, or whether special permissions are required. It does at least signal a destructive action.
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 one short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse; under-specification is already penalized in other dimensions.
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?
Although this is a simple two-parameter operation and an output schema exists, the complete absence of annotations and parameter guidance leaves an agent without critical information about prerequisites and side effects. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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 adds no meaning beyond the parameter names project_id and generation_id. An agent gets no information about ID format, relationship, or how to discover valid values, so the description fails to compensate for the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('one saved CreatorOS generation'), clearly distinguishing this from the sibling generate_*/list/get tools. Even though title is null and there is no sibling delete alternative, the action is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool, how to obtain the required project_id and generation_id, or any prerequisites such as checking existence via list_generations/get_generation. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so an agent must infer context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.