Set a specified property value across multiple Blender objects simultaneously, using a data path to target attributes like visibility or modifiers.
批量设置任意属性路径（如 hide_render、data.use_auto_smooth、modifiers['Bevel'].width）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| objects | Yes | ||
| data_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It does not mention that the tool modifies the specified properties on each object in the 'objects' list, potential error behaviors for invalid paths, or any other consequences. The description is a bare statement of intent without behavioral details.
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 extremely concise—a single sentence with illustrative examples. It is efficiently structured and contains no superfluous words.
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 tool's simplicity, the description is minimal but lacks essential context such as return value (no output schema), expected input format for 'objects', and any interaction with Blender's selection state. The absence of usage guidance and parameter explanations makes the description incomplete for confident use.
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 description only clarifies the 'data_path' parameter via examples. It does not explain the expected format or meaning of the 'objects' parameter (e.g., object names, references) nor the accepted types or semantics of the 'value' parameter. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description leaves the majority of parameter meanings ambiguous.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: batch-setting arbitrary property paths with concrete examples. It is specific about the action (batch set) and the target (arbitrary property paths). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar tools like set_custom_property, though the term 'arbitrary property' implies broader 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_custom_property or other per-object setters. It does not mention scenarios where batch_set_property is preferred, nor any prerequisites or context for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.