Remove specific fixtures from a look by supplying the look ID and fixture IDs. Use it to update a lighting look without disturbing other fixtures.
Safely remove specific fixtures from a look
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookId | Yes | Look ID to remove fixtures from | |
| fixtureIds | Yes | Array of fixture IDs to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Safely remove' but never explains what 'safely' means, whether removal is reversible, what permissions are required, or how missing fixture IDs are handled.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource appear immediately, making it easy to scan.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus 100% schema coverage gives enough to invoke it. However, because there are no annotations, it should do more to explain the effects of removal and what 'safely' guarantees.
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 100%, so both lookId and fixtureIds are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 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?
States a specific verb and resource: remove fixtures from a look. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like add_fixtures_to_look and ensure_fixtures_in_look without needing to open any schema.
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?
Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer the basic action from the name, but there is no routing help for choosing between this and related tools such as ensure_fixtures_in_look or bulk fixture operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.