Assign or update vertex group weights on an object using per-vertex values or a uniform weight, with replace, add, or subtract modes. Creates the group if it does not exist.
设置顶点组权重：weights=[[vertex_index, weight], …] 或 all=统一值；mode: REPLACE/ADD/SUBTRACT。组不存在则创建。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | ||
| mode | No | REPLACE | |
| group | Yes | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| weights | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mode behavior (REPLACE/ADD/SUBTRACT) and that the group is created if it does not exist. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether the operation is destructive, how it interacts with existing weights in other modes, or any prerequisites like object selection. This is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then details parameters and behavior. Every clause adds value: the two input formats, the mode options, and the creation behavior. No wasted 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?
For a simple setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: input formats, mode, and creation behavior. The absence of return-value documentation is acceptable for a mutation. The tool is likely straightforward, and the description gives enough to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the format of 'weights' ([[vertex_index, weight], …]), the meaning of 'all' (uniform value), and the 'mode' options. It does not explain 'object' and 'group', but these are self-explanatory from their names and required context. The description adds meaning for the key parameters but leaves the required ones undocumented.
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 action ('设置顶点组权重' – set vertex group weights) and specifies the two ways to supply values (weights list or uniform all) and the mode parameter. It also mentions that the group is created if missing, distinguishing it from related weight tools like normalize_weights and find_unweighted_vertices.
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. It does not mention sibling tools or any conditions for choosing this over normalize_weights or find_unweighted_vertices. The usage is only implied by the verb and resource, with no explicit when/when-not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.