clear_parent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the object's world transform is preserved after clearing the parent. However, it does not mention side effects on children, local transform recalculation, or behavior when the object has no parent.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately states the critical behavioral qualifier. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter operation with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states the action and the key transform-preservation behavior. However, it lacks usage guidance, parameter clarification, and any mention of edge cases or side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'name' parameter. The phrase 'an object's parent' implies that 'name' identifies the object, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's meaning, format, or valid values. This is minimal compensation.

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 ('Clear') and resource ('an object's parent'), and adds the key behavioral qualifier 'keeping its world transform.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_parent or parent_mesh_to_armature, which establish rather than remove parent relationships.

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 description implies the tool is used when an object's parent should be removed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no comparison to set_parent or other parenting-related tools.

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