Remove multiple objects from a Blender scene. Since deletion is permanent, create a checkpoint first to allow recovery.
Delete several objects. DESTRUCTIVE -- make a checkpoint first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | Objects to delete | |
| delete_children | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn 'DESTRUCTIVE' and advises creating a checkpoint first, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain what happens to child objects when delete_children is set, nor whether the deletion is permanent or undoable (given undo/redo tools exist). This is partial transparency.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Delete several objects'), and the critical warning is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the action, warns about destructiveness, and the schema covers the parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance (when to use vs delete_object) and doesn't clarify the effect of delete_children. The checkpoint advice hints at a workflow but doesn't reference the create_checkpoint tool. Overall, adequate but with notable gaps.
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?
The description adds no information about the parameters beyond the schema. The schema has 50% coverage (names is described, delete_children is not), but the description doesn't compensate for the missing delete_children semantics. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description itself contributes nothing to parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('several objects'), which distinguishes it from the sibling delete_object by implying multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative or elaborate on the plural nature beyond the word 'several', so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 on when to use this tool versus delete_object or other deletion/undo tools. The description only includes a destructive warning and checkpoint advice, which is behavioral rather than usage direction. An agent might be uncertain whether to choose this for a single object or multiple.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.