Remove a named constraint from a Blender object, with optional bone targeting for bone constraints. Delete unwanted constraints directly to keep your 3D scenes clean and efficient.
Remove a constraint by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bone | No | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| constraint | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavioral impact. It only states 'Remove,' implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose whether the removal is permanent, what happens if the constraint does not exist, or any side effects on the object. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
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, terse sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the essential action and identifier, making it efficient for an agent to parse. No unnecessary details are included.
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?
Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not visible to the agent), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the 'object' and 'bone' parameters, any error conditions, or the nature of the removal (e.g., reversible or not). An agent would likely struggle to invoke this tool correctly without external knowledge.
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?
The input schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions that constraint is identified by name, but does not explain the 'object' or 'bone' parameters. The agent receives insufficient information to correctly populate all required fields, especially since 'bone' is optional and its role is unclear.
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 as 'Remove a constraint' and specifies the identifier as 'by name.' It is concise and unambiguous, distinguishing this tool from related siblings like add_constraint or set_constraint_property. The verb and object are explicit.
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 usage for deleting a constraint but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, such as set_constraint_influence or reorder_constraint. There is no mention of prerequisites like a valid constraint name or object context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.