Move a specified object to a target collection to organize scenes and manage grouping in Blender.
Move an object to a different collection.
Args: object_name: Object to move. collection_name: Target collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | ||
| collection_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to carry the behavioral burden, the description must explain side effects. It merely states the action without disclosing whether the object is removed from its current collection, what happens if the target collection does not exist, or any permission requirements. This leaves significant ambiguity 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 extremely short, front-loaded with its purpose, and uses a standard Args block. It contains no wasted words, though it is concise to the point of under-specification, which affects other dimensions.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not state any error conditions, object type restrictions, or distinguish itself from the many sibling tools dealing with objects and collections. The minimal information leaves gaps an agent would need to fill incorrectly.
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%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief clarifications ('Object to move', 'Target collection') that add a little meaning over the schema titles, but stops short of explaining allowed values, object types, or edge cases. It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 specific action (move) and resource (object to a collection), which clearly separates it from spatial move_object and collection management tools. It could be more explicit about the relationship to collection hierarchy, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_object, create_collection, or list_collections. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases without any exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.