Reposition an object's origin point to its geometry, cursor, center of mass, or volume for accurate transformations and pivoting.
Set the origin of an object.
Args: name: Object name. origin_type: GEOMETRY, CURSOR, CENTER_OF_MASS, or CENTER_OF_VOLUME.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| origin_type | No | GEOMETRY |
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 discloses only that the origin is set, but does not explain behavioral implications such as effects on transforms, pivot points, children, or whether the operation is destructive or reversible. This is minimal for a mutation tool.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The Args block is clear and wastes no words. It could be slightly richer with usage nuance, but as written it is concise without being under-specified.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (object exists), what the operation affects, or how errors are handled. An agent would need to infer basic assumptions about Blender object origins.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the parameters, and it does: name is 'Object name' and origin_type lists the four allowed values (GEOMETRY, CURSOR, CENTER_OF_MASS, CENTER_OF_VOLUME). This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, though it omits the default value and deeper semantics of each origin type.
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 and resource: 'Set the origin of an object.' This is clear and distinct from most sibling tools like move_object or rotate_object, though it does not explicitly differentiate from batch_set_origin or mention singular vs batch scope.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like batch_set_origin, align_object, or snap_to_cursor. The description simply states what it does, with no context, exclusions, or references to related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.