Apply a specified modifier to multiple objects at once with optional custom settings, reducing repetitive actions.
Add the same modifier to multiple objects in one call.
Args: object_names: List of object names. modifier_type: Modifier type (SUBSURF, MIRROR, BEVEL, etc.) settings: Optional settings dict to apply to each modifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settings | No | ||
| object_names | Yes | ||
| modifier_type | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the mutation (adds modifiers) and that settings apply to each modifier, but gives no hints about error handling, preconditions, object existence, or whether existing modifiers are affected.
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 opening sentence states the core behavior, and the compact Args section adds necessary parameter guidance without unnecessary padding. Every sentence earns its place.
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 batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: what to pass and what the operation does. It lacks failure-mode and return-value details, but those are not essential for basic 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. It explains all three parameters meaningfully: object_names as a list, modifier_type with concrete examples ('SUBSURF, MIRROR, BEVEL'), and settings as an optional dict applied to each 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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('modifier'), and scope ('to multiple objects in one call'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling add_modifier, which applies to a single object.
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 phrase 'same modifier to multiple objects in one call' makes the batch use case clear and implies it should be chosen when multiple objects need identical modifiers. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.