Delete all objects to reset the Blender scene for a fresh start, with options to keep the camera and lights. Ask first before clearing scenes containing user work.
Delete every object in the scene (start fresh). Ask the user first if the scene has their work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keep_camera | No | ||
| keep_lights | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the destructive scope ('delete every object') plus a safety practice (confirm with the user). It omits whether the action is reversible/undoable and does not reconcile 'every object' with the keep_camera/keep_lights options, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.
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, with the core destructive action front-loaded and the cautionary note second. Efficient and readable, though the second sentence is instructional rather than informational.
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, no-annotation tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important risk (irreversible-looking bulk deletion + user confirmation) but leaves gaps around undo behavior and the keep_camera/keep_lights options.
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 keep_camera or keep_lights. With two undocumented parameters and no compensating text, an agent cannot learn from prose that it can preserve the camera or lights, so the description fails to fill the schema 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?
States a specific verb and resource: deleting all scene objects, with the clarifying parenthetical '(start fresh)'. It is clearly distinct from siblings like cleanup_mesh or organize_objects, though it doesn't explicitly name a counterpart the way a 5 would.
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 gives one conditional instruction -- ask the user first if the scene contains their work -- which strongly implies the tool is a last-resort/recovery action. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or statement of when this is appropriate versus a more selective cleanup tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.