Permanently remove a voice from an ElevenLabs account; requires voice_id and explicit confirm_delete=true to prevent accidental deletion.
Permanently delete a voice from the account. Requires explicit confirm_delete=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| voice_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden. It does disclose the two most important behavioral traits — irreversibility and a mandatory confirmation flag — but says nothing about permissions required, what happens to compositions or generations that reference the voice, or the return result of the deletion.
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 tight sentences with the destructive nature front-loaded and the safety requirement second. Nothing is redundant, though a short clause on prerequisites could be added without bloat.
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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials — resource, permanence, and the confirmation gate — are all present. Optional gaps are the deletion side effects and response confirmation, which are minor at this complexity.
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 explains confirm_delete as an explicit opt-in guard (going beyond the schema's bare boolean default of false), but voice_id is left entirely undocumented beyond its obvious name.
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 voice') with the scope 'from the account'. It is unambiguous against siblings like delete_asset or delete_history_item because the resource is named, though it does not explicitly route to alternatives such as update_voice_settings.
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?
The word 'Permanently' plus the confirm_delete requirement implies this is an irreversible operation to be used only for genuine removal, and it implicitly contrasts with update_voice_settings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites such as ownership or reference checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.