Remove a specific render by its ID to delete unwanted generated images, videos, or PDFs from your Templated account.
Delete a specific render
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| render_id | Yes | The render ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the delete is permanent, what happens to associated uploads/templates, or what errors occur on a missing render_id.
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?
One short sentence with no filler and the verb-resource pair front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 destructive, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the annotations carry the safety hint, but the description omits irreversibility and post-deletion behavior that an agent should know before invoking a delete.
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 100% and the single parameter (render_id) is documented in the schema as 'The render ID to delete'. The description adds no format or source hints for obtaining the ID, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (render), which cleanly separates it from sibling delete_folder, delete_upload, delete_font, and delete_template. However, it offers no further scope detail (e.g., what a render is, whether deletion is scoped to a workspace) to differentiate it beyond the resource noun.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives or the consequences of deleting. The agent gets no signal about whether this is reversible, whether dependent artifacts are affected, or when a different tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.