Delete native linked instances without removing their source bodies. The deletion is managed via Plasticity's Undo/Redo history.
Delete current native linked instances through Plasticity Undo/Redo history without deleting their source bodies.
| 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is routed through Undo/Redo history and preserves source bodies, which is beyond annotation data.
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?
One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no redundant text. Every clause adds information.
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?
With no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition relies entirely on the description for invocation details, but it omits parameter semantics and usage alternatives. The behavioral notes are helpful, yet the definition remains incomplete for a destructive three-parameter tool.
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%, and the description offers no meaning for the three parameters (ids, revision, intent). An agent cannot learn what 'revision' refers to or how 'ids' map to instances from either the schema or the description.
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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' on a specific resource 'current native linked instances', and adds the crucial scope qualifier 'without deleting their source bodies', which distinguishes it from generic deletion tools like plasticity_delete. It also clarifies the mechanism ('through Plasticity Undo/Redo history').
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?
It implies usage by stating the effect (delete linked instances while preserving source bodies), but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings such as plasticity_delete, plasticity_realize_instances, or plasticity_delete_named_selection, nor does it state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.