Apply a modifier to permanently bake its effects into the target mesh, simplifying geometry for editing or export.
Apply (bake) a modifier into the mesh.
Args: object_name: Target object. modifier_name: Name of the modifier to apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | ||
| modifier_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the modifier is 'baked' into the mesh, hinting at a permanent change, but it does not disclose that applying a modifier is destructive or that it collapses the modifier stack. There is no mention of error conditions, required object type, or undo behavior.
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 with the core purpose. The Args section is clean and easy to scan, and there is no filler content. It earns its place without 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It provides enough information to attempt a call but omits important behavioral context such as irreversibility, prerequisite modifier existence, and applicable object types. This makes it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. Both parameters are listed with brief descriptions ('Target object' and 'Name of the modifier to apply'), but these mostly restate the parameter names and add little constraint detail. It does not explain that modifier_name must reference an existing modifier or that the object must support that modifier.
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 verb ('Apply (bake)') and a clear resource ('a modifier into the mesh'). This makes the tool's action unambiguous and distinguishes it from related modifier tools like add_modifier or configure_modifier. However, it does not explicitly call out how it differs from siblings.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_modifier, configure_modifier, or remove_modifier. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'apply' rather than explicitly stated. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.