Detach an actor from its parent while preserving its world transform. Returns the former parent and attachment status.
Detach an actor from its current parent keeping world transform
Returns: { actor: string, was_attached: bool, detached: bool, former_parent: string }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor_name | Yes | Name or label of the actor to detach from its parent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by stating the world transform is preserved and by inlining the return object, which reveals the was_attached/detached flags (implying graceful handling of unattached actors). It doesn't mention undo/transaction behavior or permission requirements.
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?
Two lines: one sentence of purpose and one line of return shape. Front-loaded, zero filler, and the return contract is stated compactly in place of a missing output schema.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential behavioral detail (world transform retained) and the return contract, so an agent can call and interpret it. It is only slightly thin on failure modes and prerequisites for detaching.
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?
Only one parameter (actor_name) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter (e.g. naming conventions or how to resolve ambiguous labels), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('detach') and resource ('actor from its current parent'), plus the key transformation detail (keeping world transform). The semantics are unambiguous and the operation is inherently distinguishable from its inverse sibling attach_actor and from transform setters like set_actor_transform.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement (e.g. that the actor must currently be attached), and no reference to the alternative attach_actor or to how to reattach afterwards. Usage is only inferable from the name and the phrase 'from its current parent'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.