Delete one or more objects from a live shared game table by GUID or runtime ID; cascading rules also remove attached contents, so export a backup first if needed.
Remove objects from the live shared table. Cascade rules include attached contents. Export a backup first when needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objects | Yes | ||
| table_id | No | Omit to use the active connected table. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's real contribution is the cascade semantics: attached contents are removed along with the object, which is non-obvious and materially affects the decision. It still doesn't state irreversibility or whether partial failures are atomic.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded on the action and its consequence, with the safety note last. The backup clause is slightly soft but not padding.
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?
Covers the destructive action, cascade behavior, and a pre-step, which is reasonable for a 2-param tool with no output schema. Missing are failure/atomicity semantics and any hint at confirmation, which matter for a 500-item bulk destructive call.
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 50% and the existing field descriptions already explain the GUID-vs-runtime-id preference and the 'omit to use active table' default. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (remove) and resource (objects) with scope ('from the live shared table'), which clearly separates it from objects_patch and objects_move. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative directly, so an agent must infer the routing.
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?
'Export a backup first when needed' implies a prerequisite but leaves 'when needed' undefined, and there is no explicit guidance on when to choose removal versus objects_patch for edits. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.