Erase all SketchUp model entities in one undoable operation from a root edit context to reset the scene.
Erase all model entities in one undoable operation. Requires root edit context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | No | ||
| active_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / active_pathAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 32,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / model_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: that the wipe is undoable and that a root edit context is required. It still omits any warning about irreversibility outside an undo stack, but it contributes real behavioral value.
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 tight sentences that front-load the destructive action before the prerequisite. Nothing is wasted.
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 destructive bulk operation with no output schema and zero param documentation, the description covers the safety-relevant essentials (destructive, undoable, context requirement) but leaves the two parameters fully unexplained. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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% and the description never mentions model_id or active_path, so the agent gets no explanation of what these required-ish parameters do or how to supply them. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource ('Erase all model entities') with a scope word ('all') that distinguishes it from single-entity siblings like entity_delete. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the bulk-delete intent is unambiguous.
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?
It states a prerequisite ('Requires root edit context') which is useful, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus entity_delete or how it interacts with model_undo. Usage is only implied by the scope word 'all'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.