Delete a factory label from your Satisfactory save while leaving all machines untouched.
Delete a factory label. The machines themselves are untouched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| save | No | ||
| as_of | No | pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer | |
| world | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / as_ofAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer",
+ "title": "As Of"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the machines are not affected, so this is a label-only mutation. It says nothing about reversibility, whether the factory must be empty, or how the save/world/as_of parameters change behavior.
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 tight sentences, with the destructive scope clarification front-loaded. No filler to trim.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. The save/world/as_of semantics that likely govern what state gets mutated are unexplained, so an agent cannot call this correctly with confidence.
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 only 25% (just `as_of`), and the description explains none of the four parameters. The meaning of `save` and `world` — which look like world-state selection inputs — is left entirely to guesswork.
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 factory label') and immediately scopes it ('machines themselves are untouched'), which distinguishes it from a teardown-style operation and from siblings like name_factory/rename_factory. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource 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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as forget_plan or rename_factory, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. Usage is only implied by the verb 'delete'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.