Bake lattice modifier deformation permanently into a mesh, converting the temporary effect into editable geometry.
Apply lattice modifier to bake deformation into mesh.
Args: object_name: Target object with lattice modifier. modifier_name: Name of the lattice modifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | ||
| modifier_name | No | Lattice |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'bake deformation,' hinting at permanence, but does not explicitly warn that the operation is irreversible or destructive, nor does it state what happens to the modifier after baking (remains, removed, etc.). For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 extremely concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured Args section. There is no wasted text; every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core function and uses a format that makes parameter mapping easy for the agent.
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 2-parameter tool, the description might seem sufficient, but it lacks critical context for a destructive operation. It does not mention the irreversible nature of baking, the state of the modifier afterward, or relations to sibling tools like apply_modifier. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully predict the tool's effects.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It clearly defines object_name as 'Target object with lattice modifier' and modifier_name as 'Name of the lattice modifier,' adding meaning beyond attribute names and types. However, it doesn't elaborate on defaults or behavior, which the schema partially covers via the default value for modifier_name, so it doesn't reach a 5.
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: 'Apply lattice modifier to bake deformation into mesh.' It identifies the specific resource (lattice modifier) and the outcome (bake deformation), distinguishing it from generic modifier tools like apply_modifier or create_lattice. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.
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 for objects that already have a lattice modifier, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the generic apply_modifier or other sibling tools. It does not mention any prerequisites beyond the modifier existing, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is clear but not contrasted with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.