Remove a fixture instance from a LacyLights project, including its appearances in every look. Requires the fixture ID and explicit deletion confirmation.
Delete a fixture instance from a project (will remove it from all looks)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fixtureId | Yes | ID of the fixture instance to delete | |
| confirmDelete | Yes | Confirm deletion (required to be true for safety) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful cascading side effect ('will remove it from all looks'), which is useful. However, it does not state that the deletion is permanent/irreversible, and the safety confirmDelete flag is only described in the schema, not the description.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and the cascading side effect appended in a concise parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though it is not maximally informative.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and fan-out impact but leaves irreversibility, permissions, and error behavior unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of safety annotations.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a fixture instance') and scopes it to 'a project', which helps separate it from remove_fixtures_from_look (removes from one look, not deletes). It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from update_fixture_instance, but the core action 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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. An agent must infer that this is the single-instance counterpart to bulk_delete_fixtures and distinct from remove_fixtures_from_look.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.