Delete world macros by id or exact name and scrub any user hotbar slots that referenced them, preventing dead buttons. GM-only.
Delete world macros by id or exact name, scrubbing any user hotbar slots that pointed at them so no dead buttons are left behind. GM-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| macros | Yes | Macro ids or exact names (case-insensitive) to delete. Find them with list-macros. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses a critical side effect: it scrubs hotbar slots that referenced the deleted macros, preventing dead buttons. This goes beyond simple deletion and is not visible in annotations (none provided). It also notes 'GM-only' permission requirement. These are valuable behavioral details.
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?
Single sentence with two pieces of information: deletion method and side effect. Extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. No filler words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: deletion method, side effect, and permission requirement. It doesn't elaborate on error handling or return behavior, but those are likely not critical for a delete operation with no output schema.
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 emphasizes that the 'macros' parameter accepts ids or exact names (case-insensitive), which is additional guidance beyond the schema's generic description. Schema coverage is 100% but the description adds clarity on matching semantics, which is useful.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Delete', the resource 'world macros', and the two identification methods ('by id or exact name'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like delete-rolltable by focusing on macros. The distinction from list-macros is implicit but clear.
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 mentions the tool deletes macros, which is a clear context of use, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., delete-item for items). However, the sibling list is diverse, and the tool's purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would know to use it for macro deletion. No explicit exclusions or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.