Delete a named scene from the current Blender file to remove unused scenes and keep projects organized.
Delete a scene from the current .blend file.
Args: scene_name: Name of the scene to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing consequences. It states that a scene is deleted but does not mention that this is permanent, that objects within the scene are affected, or that there may be restrictions. The destructive nature is implied but 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?
The description is very short, with the main action stated in one sentence and the parameter listed in an Args block. There is no fluff, but the Args block duplicates the schema information, making it slightly redundant. Overall it is efficiently structured.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks essential context about irreversibility, dependencies on the scene graph, whether the current scene can be deleted, and what happens to objects in the deleted scene. An agent would not know the edge cases or side effects.
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 has no descriptions for the single parameter (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. The Args section says 'scene_name: Name of the scene to delete,' which restates the parameter's purpose but adds little beyond the schema's title 'Scene Name.' It does not clarify exact formatting, existence requirements, or error behavior.
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 names a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('a scene'), and a context ('current .blend file'), which clearly distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_object or delete_material. There is no ambiguity about what action is performed.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as switch_scene or new_scene, nor does it mention limitations (e.g., cannot delete the last scene). It only states the action without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.