Delete a named object from your Blender scene with a confirmation step to prevent accidental removal.
Delete an object by name. Confirm required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the confirmation requirement, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not clarify whether the delete is irreversible, what happens when confirm is false, or whether deletion cascades to children or associated data.
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 front-load the operation and target, with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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 destructiveHint and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the ambiguous phrasing of 'Confirm required'—it does not explicitly state that confirm must be set to true to proceed.
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. 'By name' explains the name parameter, and 'Confirm required' gives the confirm parameter meaningful semantics beyond its default of false. It is minimal but does clarify both parameters.
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: delete an object by name. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_collection and batch_delete by entity type and scope, and leaves no doubt about the operation.
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?
Implies the tool is for deleting a single object by name and requires confirmation, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as delete_collection or batch_delete, nor does it exclude cases where those should be used. The basic usage is inferable, but no explicit routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.