Batch set parent-child relationships for multiple object pairs in Blender in one call, with keep_transform option per pair.
Set parent-child relationships for multiple pairs in one call.
Each entry: {"child": "name", "parent": "name", "keep_transform": true}
Args: parentings: List of parenting dicts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parentings | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'keep_transform' in the example, hinting at a behavior, but it doesn't explain what it does, nor does it disclose side effects, error handling, or requirements like object existence. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and includes a useful example. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately short for a simple batch operation.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic function and parameter shape, but it lacks details on return values, error scenarios, prerequisites, and the effect of keep_transform. Given the operation's simplicity, a bit more context would be expected.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides an example structure with 'child', 'parent', and 'keep_transform', which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic object array. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of each field (e.g., what keep_transform does), so it only partially compensates.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Set parent-child relationships' and specifies 'multiple pairs in one call', which distinguishes it from single parenting tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool parent_objects, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 implies batch use via 'multiple pairs', but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like parent_objects, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.