remove_propDelete a PROP model by ID; devices referencing it fall back to solver defaults. Use it to remove obsolete property definitions before running fire simulations.
Remove a &PROP model by ID. Devices referencing it fall back to solver defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | PROP model ID to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: referencing devices fall back to solver defaults, which is exactly the kind of side-effect an agent needs before deleting. It stops short of saying whether the removal is undoable or requires confirmation, so not a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the identity/operation front-loaded and the consequence immediately after. Nothing to cut.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers both the action and its cascade effect on devices, which is what an agent most needs. It omits irreversibility and any precondition on referencing devices, leaving a small gap for 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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ("PROP model ID to remove"), so the schema already carries the semantics. "By ID" in the description restates rather than extends this. Baseline 3 applies.
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 (Remove) plus specific resource (&PROP model) plus the keying parameter (by ID). It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling mutators add_prop and update_prop, and the second sentence clarifies the resource's role in the model.
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 statement of when to delete versus update or re-parameterize a PROP, no prerequisites, and no mention of undo. The intent is inferable from the verb, but the description offers no routing guidance against siblings like update_prop, remove_device, or shape_undo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.