Create a Blender Empty to act as a parent, pivot, or offset target for an Array modifier. Set its name, location, rotation, collection, and display options.
Create an Empty. Useful as a parent, a pivot, or the offset target of an Array modifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Empty | |
| location | No | [x, y, z] in Blender units | |
| rotation | No | [x, y, z] euler rotation in DEGREES | |
| collection | No | ||
| display_size | No | ||
| display_type | No | PLAIN_AXES |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core side effect: creating a new Empty object. However, it does not mention what happens after creation, such as whether the new Empty becomes the active object, how collection placement behaves, or whether any selection state changes. The fundamental behavior is clear, but some behavioral context is missing.
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 only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every sentence contributes meaning. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
This is a creation tool with six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not tell the agent what the tool returns, how the created Empty is referenced afterward, or what scene/collection behavior to expect. An agent would need to infer too much about the result of calling this tool successfully.
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 33%, so the description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters: name, collection, display_size, and display_type. It does not. The phrase about being an 'offset target of an Array modifier' hints at spatial use, but it does not explain any of the parameters or their practical meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 exactly what the tool does: 'Create an Empty.' The use cases 'parent, a pivot, or the offset target of an Array modifier' make the unique role of an Empty clear and distinguish it from sibling creation tools like create_cube or create_mesh. The verb and resource are specific and the intent is immediately understandable.
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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool by naming concrete use cases: parent, pivot, or Array modifier offset target. It does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it, but for a simple creation tool the intended context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.