Remove a specified light object from a Blender scene by name, returning a confirmation once it is deleted.
Delete a light object from the scene.
Args: object_name: Name of the light object to delete.
Returns: Confirmation dict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / nameRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Name",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / object_nameAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Object Name",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "object_name"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms a confirmation dict is returned but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent/undoable, what happens to lights referenced by rigs or scenes, or what error occurs if object_name is invalid — significant gaps for a destructive mutation tool.
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?
Short and front-loaded: the destructive action is stated first, followed by an Args/Returns block. The Returns line adds little since an output schema exists, but overall there is minimal waste.
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?
Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain the return value, and the single parameter is covered. The main gap is the absence of annotations combined with no disclosure of destructiveness or failure behavior, which is thin for a delete operation.
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%, but there is only one parameter and the description documents it ('Name of the light object to delete'), which compensates for the missing schema description. It adds no format or naming-convention detail beyond that, so it is adequate but not rich.
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 ('Delete a light object from the scene'), which distinguishes it from broad siblings like delete_object and delete_material. However it never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus delete_object (generic) or other deletion siblings, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer that this is the light-specific variant from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.