Remove specified objects from the current Rhino document by providing their object IDs. Clean up unwanted geometry or elements with a simple deletion call.
Delete the given objects from the document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false already convey that this mutates and destroys, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not disclose permanence, whether the operation can be undone via rhino_undo, or the 500-object limit. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value beyond them either.
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 a single efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted words. It could be slightly longer to carry more semantic value, but as written it is appropriately compact.
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 tool with an output schema and annotations that already flag the destructive behavior, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the active-document targeting behavior of doc_id and relies entirely on the schema to convey that objects are addressed by ID, which an agent must infer from the parameter name.
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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only loosely maps 'given objects' to object_ids. It does not explain the object_ids format, the doc_id default of 'active', the 1-500 item constraint, or the required nature of object_ids.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('objects from the document'), making the core action clear. The phrase 'given objects' implies objects are explicitly supplied by ID, which distinguishes it in spirit from the sibling rhino_delete_selected, though it does not name that tool.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_delete_selected or rhino_object_move_to_layer. The description provides no when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no mention of preconditions such as object_ids being required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.