Retire or permanently erase a 3D design by ID; recoverable deletion is the default, while permanent removal requires explicit confirmation.
Delete a design — retire it (default, recoverable) or erase it permanently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Default: "". | |
| design_id | Yes | ||
| permanent | No | Default: false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the critical behavioral trait that retire is recoverable by default and erase is permanent, which is valuable. It omits permissions/auth requirements, side effects on versions/branches/releases, and any irreversibility warnings beyond the word 'permanently'.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and immediately contrasts the safe default against the destructive variant. No wasted 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?
For a destructive, annotation-free tool with three parameters, the description should at minimum explain the confirm parameter and downstream effects on branches/versions. It covers the mode semantics well but is incomplete about confirmation and side effects.
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 67%; the schema already documents permanent's default and design_id is self-evident. The description adds the recoverability meaning of permanent=false, but leaves the 'confirm' parameter completely unexplained even though it is likely required for permanent deletion — a meaningful gap for a destructive tool.
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 a design') and clarifies the two deletion modes (retire vs. permanent erase). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings like archive_design/unarchive_design, which an agent could easily confuse with the 'retire' mode.
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 when to use each mode (default retire vs. permanent) and signals that the default is the safer option. It gives no guidance on prerequisites, when to prefer archive_design over this tool, or when permanent deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.