Delete a named camera from 3ds Max. The action is irreversible, so verify the camera name before proceeding.
删除一个相机。不可恢复，请谨慎调用。 [English] Delete a camera. Not recoverable, use with care.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| camera | Yes | 相机名称。 | Camera name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description strengthens this by specifying that the deletion is not recoverable and should be used with care. This adds permanence context beyond the generic destructive flag, though it does not describe effects on linked scene objects or missing-name 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?
The description is compact, front-loads the action, and includes a clear warning. The bilingual duplication is purposeful for the likely user base and adds no unnecessary 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 single-parameter destructive operation with a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the warning plus the parameter schema is nearly complete. It could mention error behavior for unknown camera names, but that is a minor gap.
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 100%; the only parameter 'camera' already has an explicit name and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, so the schema carries the semantic load.
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 precise action ('Delete a camera') on a specific resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling camera tools like cam_create, cam_get, cam_set, cam_list, and cam_set_viewport by identifying the deletion operation.
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 intended use is implied by the imperative 'Delete a camera,' but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, though no direct deletion sibling exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.