Remove a specific shape key from a mesh object by providing the object name and key name.
Remove a shape key from an object.
Args: object_name: Target mesh object. key_name: Name of the shape key to remove.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_name | Yes | ||
| object_name | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the action removes a shape key, but does not disclose side effects such as whether removing a key that is animated or referenced breaks animation data, whether the operation is destructive/irreversible, or behavior when the key does not exist.
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 compact: a one-line purpose statement followed by an Args block. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though the Args block somewhat duplicates what a well-documented schema would carry.
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 two-parameter removal operation, the description covers the basic call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around failure behavior, side effects on animation data, and whether the operation is reversible — notable for a destructive mutation tool.
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%, but the Args block compensates by explaining object_name as 'Target mesh object' and key_name as 'Name of the shape key to remove.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types/titles, though the explanations are brief and could note constraints such as requiring the key to exist.
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 verb (Remove) and resource (shape key) plus the target object, making the tool's purpose clear. It is inherently distinguishable from siblings like add_shape_key and set_shape_key_value by the action verb, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.
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 on when to use this tool versus add_shape_key or set_shape_key_value, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the shape key must exist, object must be a mesh). There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.