Create a fresh empty CLO3D project and clear the current scene. Set discard_unsaved to drop unsaved changes when prompted; otherwise it stops with an error.
Create a new empty CLO3D project, clearing the current scene.
Args: discard_unsaved: Drop unsaved changes when CLO asks; otherwise it stops with an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| discard_unsaved | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / properties / discard_unsavedAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Discard Unsaved",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is destructive (clears the current scene), that it can lose unsaved work, and that with discard_unsaved=false it will stop with an error rather than silently proceed. It does not cover permissions or post-call state, but the key risk traits are surfaced.
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?
One front-loaded sentence for the action plus one short line per parameter; no filler, no restatement of the name, and the destructive scope appears before the parameter detail.
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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the action, its destructive effect, and the parameter's failure mode. Minor gaps remain (e.g., what state the project is left in afterwards, whether saving is required), but nothing critical is missing.
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 must explain the single parameter, and it does: discard_unsaved drops unsaved changes when CLO prompts, otherwise the operation errors out. This is meaningful semantics (the error path) well beyond the boolean type and false default in the schema.
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 ('Create a new empty CLO3D project') and adds the important scope note that the current scene is cleared, which separates it from siblings like open_file or import_file. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the destructive scope makes the intent 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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for starting from scratch, and the discard_unsaved note hints at the pre-condition that unsaved work may block the call. There is no explicit when-to-use versus open_file/restart_clo guidance or statement of exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.