Delete SketchUp entities by ID; pass required entity_ids to remove specific objects, not current selection. The action can be undone.
Delete entities by id (ids are required; never deletes by selection). Can be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_ids | Yes | Ids from tool results (selection_info, create_*...); only valid in the current SketchUp session. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating the operation 'can be undone', which materially changes how an agent should weigh the risk, plus the guarantee that a selection alone will never trigger a delete. It stops short of describing child/component propagation.
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 zero filler; the destructive scope constraint and the reversibility note are both front-loaded. Every clause carries information.
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 destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key questions: what it acts on, what it will not act on, and that the effect is reversible. It could say more about cascading effects on nested entities, but nothing essential 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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, including where valid ids come from and their session-scoped validity. The description restates 'ids are required' (already in the schema's required list) and adds only the negative constraint about selection, so baseline 3 is correct.
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 entities by id') and immediately bounds the operation ('never deletes by selection'), which cleanly separates it from select_entities, transform_entities, and the create_* siblings. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.
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?
It makes the input requirement explicit ('ids are required; never deletes by selection'), implying the agent must first obtain ids rather than acting on a live selection. It does not name the sibling to use for that step (e.g. selection_info), so the alternative-routing is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.