Permanently delete a dubbing project by providing its project_id and setting confirm_delete to true to prevent accidental removal.
Permanently delete a dubbing project. Requires explicit confirm_delete=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| confirm_delete | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the operation is permanent and gated by an explicit confirm flag. It does not disclose side effects on associated languages/dubbed media, permission requirements, or whether recovery is possible after the fact.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive nature is front-loaded via 'Permanently'. Every clause adds information.
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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition covers the essentials (permanence + confirmation requirement) but omits cascade effects and failure modes an agent should know before invoking 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partly does by explaining confirm_delete's role as an explicit confirmation gate, adding safety semantics beyond the bare boolean/default. project_id is self-explanatory by name, but neither parameter gets format or validation detail.
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 ('Permanently delete') and a specific resource ('a dubbing project'), which naturally distinguishes it from the other delete_* siblings (delete_voice, delete_asset, delete_music_finetune, delete_history_item). It's clear but doesn't explicitly note any sibling relationship.
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?
Provides one concrete precondition ('Requires explicit confirm_delete=true'), which is a usable usage cue. However, it gives no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g., when to delete vs. just stop using a project), and no note on whether the deletion is recoverable or what dependent resources are affected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.