Permanently delete a media file by its media ID. Linked campaigns or templates will show a broken file, and the deletion cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a media file. Campaigns or templates that still link to its URL will show a broken file. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| media_id | Yes | Media ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: the deletion is permanent, irreversible, and leaves dependent campaigns/templates with broken file URLs. It does not say whether the call errors when the media is in use, but the stated consequence implies it proceeds.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence and irreversibility. No filler.
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 tool with annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is deleted, that it is irreversible, and the downstream impact. Only a note on failure behavior when referenced assets exist would improve it.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema does the work and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about media_id (e.g., where to obtain it) beyond 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 verb and resource ('Permanently delete a media file'), and the resource cleanly separates it from sibling deletes like delete_template or delete_mailing_list. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?
Usage is implied by the destructive framing and the broken-link warning, which helps an agent decide, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as rename_media or get_media_list for verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.