blender_delete_objects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explicitly states that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone from the MCP server, going beyond the destructiveHint annotation by emphasizing irreversibility and advising a save step. This adds valuable context that the annotation alone does not convey.

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 sentences, no fluff, and the critical warning is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward deletion tool, the description covers the essential caution (irreversibility and save advice). It does not describe return values or side effects beyond deletion, but for this simple operation it is sufficiently complete.

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 description provides no information about the parameters. Schema coverage is only 50% (only response_format has a description), and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'objects' array. An agent is left to infer what the objects parameter expects.

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 clear verb ('delete'), resource ('objects from the .blend file'), and permanence, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but among siblings it is the only delete operation, so it is easily distinguishable.

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?

The description provides a critical usage warning ('save first if the scene matters') but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implicit from the name and description, but explicit routing to other tools is absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.