bb_reparent_elementsMove selected elements under a new parent group or to the root in Blockbench to reorganize model hierarchies without manual dragging.
Move elements under a new parent group (or "root").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent | Yes | ||
| targets | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether existing transforms are preserved, what happens to children of the moved elements, how conflicts with an existing parent are resolved, or what errors occur. "Move" clarifies mutation intent but no side effects or preconditions.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and destination are stated immediately. It is under-specified rather than bloated, so conciseness is fine but it is arguably too terse for a required-parameter mutation tool.
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?
A mutation tool with two required, wholly undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema should do more work in the description. Callers cannot determine target format, parent reference format, or the effect on the hierarchy from the text provided.
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% for both required parameters. The description partially clarifies "parent" by indicating it accepts a group or the literal "root", but says nothing about the format of "targets" (IDs, names, list, single element) or whether parent accepts an ID versus a name.
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+resource ("Move elements") and names the destination concept (a new parent group or "root"), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling mutators like bb_transform_elements, bb_group_elements, or bb_duplicate_elements. It does not, however, explain how reparenting differs from grouping or how the hierarchy is affected.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. bb_group_elements, bb_set_element) handles adjacent hierarchy tasks. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name and one sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.