Remove a Blender collection, optionally moving its objects to the scene collection first to preserve them.
Delete a collection.
Args: name: Collection name. keep_objects: If True, move objects to the scene collection first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| keep_objects | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that keep_objects=True moves objects to the scene collection first, but it does not explicitly state what happens when keep_objects is False (e.g., objects are deleted along with the collection). It also does not mention whether the operation is reversible, if confirmation is needed, or any other side effects. Some value is added, but significant gaps remain.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is structured clearly, each parameter explained in a single line. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail. However, it could be improved by stating the default behavior of keep_objects directly in the description rather than relying on the schema default.
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?
The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), so the description is mostly adequate. However, it leaves out critical context about what happens to objects when keep_objects is False, which is essential for an agent to understand the full impact of the operation. It also does not mention whether the collection's children or nested collections are affected. This makes it incomplete for safe usage.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear, concise definitions for both parameters: 'name' as the collection name and 'keep_objects' explaining the move-objects behavior. This adds meaningful information beyond the raw schema, though it could be slightly more explicit about edge cases (e.g., default behavior when keep_objects is not set).
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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a collection.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like delete_object, delete_scene, delete_material, etc. It also adds context about the keep_objects parameter, which clarifies the tool's core behavior.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools (e.g., move_to_collection for preserving objects). The usage is only implied by the name and description, which is insufficient for an agent to decide when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.