Delete 3D volumes (walls, slabs, roofs) for a chosen level or all levels while keeping the 2D plan intact, allowing quick cleanup or regeneration of 3D geometry.
Delete the 3D volumes (walls, slab, roof) of one level, or of all levels. The 2D plan is untouched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that the tool deletes 3D volumes and explicitly preserves the 2D plan. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare verb 'delete', though it omits details like irreversibility or error conditions.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the destructive action and resource, then efficiently covers scope and the key exclusion (2D plan untouched). Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 tool with only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is deleted, what is preserved, and the scope choices. It is slightly light on how the 'level' parameter maps to actual level identifiers, but overall the definition is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'of one level, or of all levels' directly explains the single 'level' parameter: a string identifies one level, while the default null means all levels. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify the exact format expected for a level string.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('3D volumes (walls, slab, roof)') with clear scope ('one level, or of all levels'). It also distinguishes itself from 2D operations by explicitly stating the 2D plan is untouched. This clearly separates it from generic delete_object and 2D-focused siblings.
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 implies the correct use case: removing 3D volume geometry while preserving 2D plans. It does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope options ('one level, or of all levels') give enough context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.