Freeze an object's transforms into its mesh data, resetting location, rotation, and scale to identity to prevent inherited transformations from affecting edits.
Apply (freeze) the object's transforms to mesh data. Resets the applied transforms to identity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| scale | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| rotation | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and clearly states the core side effect: transforms are baked into mesh data and the applied transforms are reset to identity. It does not cover edge cases like non-mesh objects or undoability, but the primary mutation is transparent.
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?
Two short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the operation and the postcondition. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The core behavior is present, but with no annotations and no parameter explanations, an agent cannot fully predict which transforms are applied when toggles are false or what happens for non-mesh objects. The output schema may cover return values, so the main gaps are usage guidance and parameter semantics rather than return format.
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%, and the description does not explain that the scale, location, and rotation booleans select which transform components are frozen, nor what the required name parameter refers to beyond the obvious. The property names are self-explanatory from the schema, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.
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?
States a specific verb ('Apply (freeze)'), the target ('the object's transforms'), and the destination ('to mesh data'), plus the postcondition ('Resets the applied transforms to identity'). This clearly distinguishes it from set_transform, which changes transform values rather than baking them, and from apply_modifier.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_transform, set_origin, convert_to_mesh, or apply_modifier. The intended use is implied by the freeze/bake language, but no conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.