Delete a pattern at the specified index, then verify the remaining pattern count because subsequent indices may shift.
Inspect, delete and verify count change. Remaining indices may shift. May change scene or write files. Verify resulting state. A timed-out operation is UNKNOWN: reconcile_operation before any retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so excellently. It reveals that remaining indices may shift, that the operation may change the scene or write files, that state must be verified, and that a timed-out operation is UNKNOWN until reconciled. This is far beyond a typical delete description.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: the core action, the index-shift warning, the side-effect warning, the verification instruction, and the timeout reconciliation rule. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of padding.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a remarkably complete operational picture: verify before, handle side effects, verify after, and recover from timeout. It could be more explicit about where pattern_index comes from, but the tool is otherwise callable without missing critical steps.
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 one parameter, pattern_index, with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description only indirectly references indices by saying they may shift; it never explicitly defines pattern_index as identifying the target pattern in a list or explains indexing origin. The parameter meaning must be inferred from the name alone.
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 operation: 'delete' a pattern, with additional verification steps. It distinguishes itself from the many inspect/list siblings by naming the delete action and the expected count change. The purpose is immediately recognizable.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives. It does provide a useful conditional: on timeout, use reconcile_operation before retrying. That is specific but narrow; broader usage context is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.