Delete a specific vertex group and all its weight data from a mesh object in Blender.
Delete a vertex group and every weight in it.
Args: object_name: Mesh object. group_name: Vertex group to delete.
Returns: Dict with the removed group and the groups left.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_name | Yes | ||
| object_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical destructive consequence: the group and all its weights are removed, and it names the return shape. It still omits side effects on armature deformation/modifiers referencing the group, and whether the object must be active or in object mode.
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 destructive consequence is front-loaded in sentence one, and the Args/Returns blocks are short and scannable. 'Vertex group to delete' slightly restates the name but costs little.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values did not need spelling out, and both required params get a line. However, for a destructive, zero-annotation tool, missing prerequisites and failure behavior leave the agent guessing at preconditions.
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%, and only two params exist; the Args block gives each one a short gloss, adding a little over the bare schema titles ('Mesh object' tells the agent the target must be a mesh). It does not clarify name format, case sensitivity, or whether the object must be selected/active.
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+resource ('Delete a vertex group') and adds scope ('every weight in it'), so the agent immediately knows the operation and its blast radius. It does not name the related siblings (list_vertex_groups, assign_vertex_group, vertex_group_operation), so differentiation from those is left to inference.
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 intent is implied by the verb, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no pointer to alternatives such as vertex_group_operation, which may also manipulate groups. No prerequisites (object must be a mesh, group must exist) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.