blender_parent_objects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are all false, providing no safety or behavioral signals. The description discloses one important behavioral aspect: the option to keep world position, which is a meaningful side effect. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the child's local transform, or potential errors (e.g., if the parent does not exist). With annotations neutral, the description carries the burden, and it only partially fulfills it.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It avoids redundancy and conveys the core purpose and a key option without fluff. It is concise but not so terse that it loses meaning, earning a high score for structure.

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 an operation that modifies scene hierarchy, the description is incomplete. It does not state that child and parent must be valid object names, nor does it describe the expected output (though response_format suggests some return value). It also lacks error handling details or how the operation affects transforms beyond the keep_transform option. Given the complexity of parenting and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description falls short of what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 25% (only response_format has a description). The tool description implicitly explains keep_transform via 'optionally keeping its world position', but does not clarify that child and parent are object names or how they should reference existing objects. With such low coverage, the description should compensate more but only addresses one parameter loosely.

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 clearly states the action ('Parent one object to another') and the resource (objects), which is distinct from sibling transform tools like blender_set_transform or blender_apply_transform. However, it does not elaborate on what parenting entails (e.g., hierarchy change, transform inheritance), and the phrase 'optionally keeping its world position' hints at a key option but leaves the actual effect somewhat implicit.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., objects must exist), nor conditions for preferring parenting over other transform operations. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.