Switch any Blender object into vertex paint mode for direct color assignment. Specify an object name, or leave empty to paint the active object.
Enter vertex paint mode.
Args: object_name: Object to paint (empty = active object).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | No |
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it enters the mode, with no mention of side effects, state changes, prerequisites, or consequences. For a mode-switching operation, this is insufficient transparency.
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 the purpose front-loaded and the parameter explanation succinct. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks any context about prerequisites, side effects, or what happens after entering the mode. For a one-parameter tool this is acceptable, but it could be more complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains object_name as 'Object to paint (empty = active object)', which adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare string type and default. It clarifies default behavior and intended use, earning a 4.
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 'Enter vertex paint mode' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from similar mode-entry tools like enter_weight_paint and enter_sculpt_mode by naming the exact mode. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as enter_weight_paint or enter_sculpt_mode. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. This is a clear gap given the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.