delete_objectRemove an object definition from a writable module's XML by module and ref, deleting every matching id definition.
Removes an object definition from a writable module's XML (all definitions of that id in the module).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Object: Item.x, NPCCharacter.x, … or bare id. | |
| module | Yes | Writable module id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does 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 genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: deletion applies to ALL definitions of the given id, not just one, and is confined to module XML. It stops short of stating reversibility or not-found behavior.
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 no filler. The verb, resource, and the critical 'all definitions of that id' qualifier all land immediately.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs: what is removed, from where, and how broadly. Minor gaps (failure mode when the id is absent, whether an undo path exists) remain but are not blocking.
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 coverage is 100% and both params are documented inline (ref accepts 'Item.x' or bare id; module is a writable module id), so the schema carries the load. The description's phrase 'writable module' reinforces the module param but adds no new syntax or format detail.
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 specific verb and resource — 'Removes an object definition' — and scopes it to 'a writable module's XML', which is more precise than the title. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from nearest siblings like write_object, edit_submodule, or undo_edit.
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 rather than stated: 'writable module's XML' hints the module must be editable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the undo_edit alternative, and no note on what to do if the id is not found.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.