Delete one semantic named selection by UUID while leaving Plasticity geometry unchanged. Removes named selection references without modifying CAD bodies.
Delete one MCP semantic named selection without changing Plasticity geometry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selectionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this destructive/non-readOnly, but the description adds genuinely new information: the deletion is confined to MCP metadata and does not alter Plasticity geometry. That tempers the destructive hint in a way an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is reversible or what happens on an unknown selectionId.
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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and resource. Nothing to trim.
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?
Adequate for a trivial one-parameter delete with no output schema, and the geometry non-impact note is a real contribution. The gaps are the provenance of selectionId and failure/reversibility behavior on 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?
The single parameter selectionId has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so its meaning (a UUID referencing a named selection) must be inferred. No hint about where to obtain a valid ID.
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?
Specific verb ('Delete') plus a precise resource ('one MCP semantic named selection') and a scope of exactly one item. This is clearly distinguishable from the neighboring plasticity_save_named_selection and plasticity_list_named_selections tools, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling that produces the selectionId (list_named_selections). The only contextual signal is the negative scope claim about geometry, which is a constraint rather than usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.