Reorder a Blender object's constraint by moving it up or down in the stack with a specified direction, preserving animation and rigging setups.
Move a constraint up or down. Direction: UP or DOWN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bone | No | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| direction | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and direction values, without explaining effects on constraint evaluation, whether the constraint must already exist, how 'up' is defined, or any side effects of the mutation.
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 short and front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, and the second sentence gives the required direction values. There is no filler or redundant explanation.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and four parameters, this description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It omits what object, constraint, and bone refer to, how direction maps to ordering, and what conditions must hold before calling; the presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.
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 the description only clarifies the 'direction' parameter by listing UP or DOWN as valid values. The roles of 'object', 'constraint', and the optional 'bone' are left entirely to inference from their names.
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 action ('Move') on a specific resource ('constraint') with a directional qualifier ('up or down'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the up/down movement is distinct from constraint add, remove, and property-setting operations.
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 intended use—reordering a constraint in its stack—is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_constraints or set_constraint_property. No prerequisites, exclusions, or ordering context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.