Bake physics simulations for Blender objects into keyframed animation. Convert dynamic effects into stable, editable frames for rendering and further edits.
Bake physics simulation. Long-running operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object | 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 full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is long-running, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, whether existing bakes are overwritten, whether it blocks, or what happens if no valid physics simulation exists.
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 very concise and front-loads the core action, with the long-running caveat right after. Every sentence is informative, though the brevity leaves out important semantic details.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for an operation with an ambiguous optional parameter and no annotation context. It lacks usage context, parameter meaning, and behavioral expectations, leaving an agent guessing about correct invocation.
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 has one parameter, 'object', with zero description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. Since the schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate and completely failed to do so.
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: 'Bake physics simulation.' This is clear about what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish it from related siblings like bake_particles or free_physics_bake, so it misses the differentiation needed for a 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether the object parameter is required or how it relates to selection. The only contextual hint is that it is long-running, which is not enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.