delete_project_items

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose one important side effect: clips referencing deleted items are removed from timelines. It stops short of saying the operation is irreversible, whether undo applies, or what happens to media on disk versus project references.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and the destructive side effect packed into a parenthetical; 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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. The cascade warning is useful, but irreversibility, ID provenance, and distinction from delete_sequence are missing.

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% for the single required parameter nodeIds, and the description never mentions it. It does not clarify that multiple IDs are accepted, what kind of identifier a 'node id' is, or where to obtain one.

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?

A specific verb (delete) and resource (project items, sequences, bins) with the affected entity types spelled out. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling delete_sequence, which appears to overlap with the 'sequences' case mentioned here, so an agent gets no routing rule.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus delete_sequence or the narrower deletion tools, and no stated preconditions (project open, item not in use, etc.). The parenthetical describes a consequence, not a usage condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.