Delete selected body IDs from a Plasticity CAD scene with Undo support, so agents can remove unwanted geometry and revert if needed.
Delete selected body IDs with Undo support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral value by disclosing that deletion is Undo-supported, but omits what happens on revision mismatch, auth needs, or the scope of the undo.
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?
A single compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.
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, 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the mandatory revision parameter, the purpose of intent, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent under-informed about a destructive 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely fails. It maps loosely to the 'ids' array, but the required 'revision' parameter (a concurrency token) and the 'intent' parameter are completely unexplained.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete selected body IDs'), which is clear and actionable. However, with many sibling delete tools (delete_edges, delete_faces, delete_measurement, delete_instances), it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives beyond naming 'body IDs'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other deletion tools, no prerequisites stated, and no mention of the required 'revision' concurrency parameter. 'With Undo support' hints at reversibility but does not tell the agent when this is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.