Delete approximate STL/OBJ reference meshes through Undo/Redo history while preserving native B-Rep bodies in Plasticity.
Delete current approximate STL/OBJ reference meshes through Plasticity Undo/Redo history without touching native B-Rep 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 mark this destructive and non-read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them: deletion runs 'through Plasticity Undo/Redo history' (implying reversibility) and is scoped to not affect native B-Rep bodies, clarifying exactly what is and isn't destroyed.
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 front-loaded sentence with the action verb first and zero filler. Every clause (undo/redo history, B-Rep exclusion) carries 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?
Annotations cover the destructive profile and there is no output schema to explain, but for a delete tool with two required params at 0% schema coverage the description omits critical invocation detail, notably the required 'revision' token and the meaning of 'intent'. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 does not. It never explains what 'ids' selects, what 'revision' represents (a required concurrency/version token), or what 'intent' is for, leaving all three required/supported params opaque.
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 gives a specific verb (Delete) and a precisely scoped resource (approximate STL/OBJ reference meshes), and it distinguishes the target from native B-Rep bodies. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, but the resource scope is unambiguous relative to the list/move/rotate reference-mesh siblings.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope claim 'without touching native B-Rep bodies', which tells the agent this is only for meshes, not solids. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., undo/redo, unlink), leaving conditions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.