Delete a design parameter from the parameter list by specifying its name. Use this tool to remove unwanted parameters when configuring 3D models, ports, or solver settings in CST Studio Suite.
Delete a design parameter from the parameter list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether deletion fails if the parameter is in use by geometry or the model, whether an error is raised for unknown names, or whether the deletion is persisted to the project.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing is wasted. It is perhaps too terse to be truly optimal, but structurally sound.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description omits error behavior, dependencies, and side effects that an agent needs before invoking it.
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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description would need to compensate but does not — it never clarifies whether 'name' is the existing parameter's identifier, whether it is case-sensitive, or what form it takes. Only the near self-evident naming keeps this above 1.
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?
Specific verb 'Delete' plus resource 'design parameter from the parameter list' — an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like cst_set_parameters_tool, cst_get_parameters_tool, or cst_define_parameters_tool, so sibling differentiation is absent.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as editing a parameter via cst_set_parameters_tool instead of deleting it. The description only restates the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.