Adjust properties of an existing 3D object in Cinema 4D, including position, rotation, and scale.
Modify properties of an existing object.
Args:
object_name: Name of the object to modify
properties: Dictionary of properties to modify (position, rotation, scale, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| properties | Yes | ||
| object_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, whether properties are overwritten or merged, whether changes are undoable, or what error conditions may occur. 'Modify properties' only states the basic intent, not the behavior around it.
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 in the first sentence. The Args block is compact, though the parameter summaries mostly restate the parameter names and add little beyond the examples.
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?
Basic inputs are identified, but an agent would still lack enough information to construct valid property values, understand coordinate spaces or units, or anticipate error behavior. The output schema may cover return values, but the description alone leaves significant operational gaps.
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 only defines object_name and properties as raw names, and the description adds that properties is a dictionary containing things like position, rotation, and scale. That is helpful but incomplete: it omits accepted property names, value formats, units, and optionality.
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 ('Modify') and a clear resource ('properties of an existing object'), and gives example property categories (position, rotation, scale). It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the phrase 'existing object' helps distinguish it from creation tools like add_primitive.
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 versus related scene-editing tools such as apply_material, set_keyframe, or group_objects. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.