Remove a named constraint from a target object to clear movement or rotation restrictions and restore full transform control.
Remove a constraint from an object.
Args: object_name: Target object. constraint_name: Name of the constraint to remove.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | ||
| constraint_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a constraint is removed and does not mention whether the removal is permanent, what happens if the constraint does not exist, or whether the object is affected in any other way. This is minimal coverage 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?
One concise summary sentence is front-loaded, followed by two compact parameter lines. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary context.
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?
The tool is simple and both required parameters are addressed, so a basic invocation is possible. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves error behavior, reversibility, and edge cases like nonexistent constraints unexplained. It is adequate but not fully complete for unforeseen runtime situations.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief definitions for both parameters, but 'Target object' and 'Name of the constraint to remove' mostly restate the schema titles without adding format, validation, or uniqueness constraints. This is minimally adequate but not rich.
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?
States exactly what it does with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a constraint from an object.' The scope is unambiguous and is naturally distinguished from complementary siblings like add_object_constraint and add_bone_constraint. The parameter names align directly with the described operation.
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 choose this tool over add_object_constraint, add_bone_constraint, or remove_modifier, nor are prerequisites mentioned, such as the constraint needing to exist or the object needing to be selected. The single imperative sentence is clear about the action but not about decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.