Remove a specific body from a Fusion 360 model and verify the updated state without affecting sketches, features, or construction geometry.
Delete exactly one body and verify the resulting model state. Destructive. This does not delete sketches, features, or construction geometry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it promises to 'verify the resulting model state' and specifies that it does not delete sketches, features, or construction geometry. This gives the agent a clearer picture of side effects, though it does not detail failure scenarios or reversibility.
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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation and result, the second clarifies scope. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description is reasonably complete for a destructive tool given annotations, but it leaves a key gap: the meaning of the 'body' parameter is unexplained, which is critical for correct invocation. It also does not address what happens if the body does not exist or how verification is performed. Without an output schema, more detail on expected outcomes would improve completeness.
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 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the 'body' parameter. It does not clarify whether the integer/string refers to an ID, name, or index, nor how to obtain it. The description says 'exactly one body' but that is behavioral, not semantic. The tool description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 exactly one body') and adds scope clarification ('This does not delete sketches, features, or construction geometry.'). While it does not name a sibling tool, the scope disclaimers effectively distinguish it from other deletion or modification tools, making the purpose 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?
The context is clear: this tool deletes a single body and verifies the model state. It implicitly excludes multiple-body deletion with 'exactly one'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., fusion_delete_all) or state when not to use this tool, so it does not fully meet the 5-level criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.