Apply a named material or color appearance to a selected body in Fusion 360. Use with fusion_list_appearances to find valid names like Steel, Aluminum, or ABS.
Apply an appearance (by name) to a body. Use fusion_list_appearances to discover valid names (e.g. 'Steel', 'Aluminum', 'ABS').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as handling of invalid names or bodies, or side effects. Minimal additional value beyond annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant information.
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 description adequately conveys the core functionality and direction to discover valid names. However, it lacks information on error handling, return values, or case sensitivity, leaving some gaps.
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%. The description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond their names. Parameters are simple but no added meaning to aid the agent.
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 (apply), the resource (appearance), and the target (body). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool fusion_list_appearances, which is for discovering valid names.
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 explicitly advises to use fusion_list_appearances to discover valid names, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.