delete_transcriptionPermanently delete a transcription, its media, and all derived outputs in one action. This removal cannot be undone.
Delete a transcription, its media and everything made from it. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the blast radius — media and all derived artifacts are removed, not just the transcription record — and that the effect is irreversible.
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 sentences, no filler, and the cascade scope plus irreversibility warning are both front-loaded where an agent will read them before acting.
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 single-parameter destructive endpoint with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is the identity of the id argument and any async/permission behavior.
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 exactly one required parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description never clarifies whether that id identifies the transcription, the media file, or a derived artifact, leaving genuine ambiguity for a cascading delete.
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), a specific resource (transcription), and the cascade scope (its media and everything made from it). No sibling tool in the list performs deletion, so the operation is unambiguously distinct.
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 irreversible nature of the operation, but the description never states when an agent should prefer this over, say, archiving, nor any prerequisites such as ownership or permission requirements, or whether confirmation is expected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.