Permanently remove a sequence from the open Premiere Pro project by name or ID. Use it to clean up unused timelines and keep project panels organized.
Delete a sequence from the project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sequence | Yes | Sequence name or ID (from get_sequences) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a destructive operation. It does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether it can be undone, whether the sequence must be closed or active first, or whether underlying media is affected; 'from the project' is the only faint hint and is not elaborated.
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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is lean to the point of under-specification rather than being padded.
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, annotation-free tool, the description leaves out irreversibility, preconditions, and side effects on media and open sequences. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is materially incomplete.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the single 'sequence' parameter is already documented as 'Sequence name or ID (from get_sequences)'. The description adds nothing on accepted formats or ambiguity between name and 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?
Specific verb plus resource: 'Delete a sequence from the project'. An agent can tell this is a deletion of a whole sequence rather than of items or tracks, but the description never distinguishes it from close_sequence, which is the nearest ambiguous sibling.
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, and no mention of the close_sequence alternative that an agent would plausibly confuse it with. The agent must infer the difference from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.