Parent an object to another in Blender, or clear its parent, with optional world-transform preservation.
Parent one object to another (or clear its parent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| child | Yes | ||
| parent | No | Parent object name; omit to unparent | |
| keep_transform | No | Preserve the child's world transform |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (parenting or unparenting) but does not mention side effects like transform implications (unless keep_transform is set, which is in the schema), requirements for existing objects, or potential errors. It adds minimal context beyond the action itself, so it is adequate but not rich.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the secondary behavior (clearing) without unnecessary words. It is optimally sized and structured for quick comprehension.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential action but omits important contextual details such as prerequisites (both objects must exist), error handling, or the effect on world transforms (though keep_transform is in the schema). The agent can likely infer enough to call it correctly, but the description does not fully cover the operation's context.
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 schema description coverage is 67% (parent and keep_transform have descriptions; child does not). The tool description does not elaborate on parameters; it only restates the general action. Since the schema already covers two of three parameters, the description adds little extra value, but the child parameter's purpose is clear from the name and the tool description.
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: 'Parent one object to another (or clear its parent).' This specifies the verb (parent), the resource (object), and the alternative behavior (clearing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_transform or set_origin by focusing on hierarchy rather than transform values, so an agent can easily identify when to use it.
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 (when you need to establish or remove a parent-child relationship) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool suggestions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.