Remove a group or component from a SketchUp model by specifying its entity ID. Returns confirmation that the deletion was successful.
Delete a group or component by entity ID.
Returns: JSON {ok: true}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID from a previous response (integer or its string form) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Entity ID from a previous response (integer or its string form)"Input schema / properties / id / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / id / typeRemoved value: -"string"v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return value but fails to warn about permanent data loss or side effects. For a delete operation, this is insufficient.
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 with two sentences, no redundant information, and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
While the tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, the description lacks details on error handling, idempotency, and permission requirements, which are important for a delete operation.
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 schema already fully describes the 'id' parameter (100% coverage). The description only repeats 'by entity ID', adding no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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 the resource ('group or component') and specifies the method ('by entity ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as it is the only deletion operation among them.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for safe use. Given the destructive nature, such guidance is important.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.