Apply installed .p2m appearances to exact named components in a saved assembly, validating each target before mutation without saving or changing the scene.
Apply installed .p2m appearances to exact named components of the specified saved assembly. Validates every target before mutation; does not save the assembly or change its scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| assignments | Yes | ||
| document_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare a destructive, non-read-only mutation, and the description adds useful context beyond them: every target is validated before mutation, the assembly is not saved, and its scene is not changed. It does not fully explain partial-failure behavior or reversibility, but it gives a strong safety profile.
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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and the behavioral caveats follow immediately.
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 mutation risk and absence of an output schema, the definition covers the most important safety behaviors. However, it leaves the dry_run preview option and return/result behavior unexplained, so it is adequate rather than 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the saved assembly (document_path), exact component names (assignments.component), and .p2m material paths (assignments.material_path), but it omits the dry_run parameter and the color override semantics, leaving clear gaps.
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: applying installed .p2m appearances to exact named components of a saved assembly. It clearly scopes the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as set_appearance or pro_colorize.
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?
Usage is implied by the narrow scope: exact named components, installed .p2m appearances, and a saved assembly. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling appearance or visualization tools, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.