Roll back all modifications made inside an active undo transaction in 3ds Max. Use this to reverse changes and restore the scene to its prior state.
取消 begin_undo 开启的事务并回滚其中的全部改动。 [English] Cancel the transaction opened by begin_undo, rolling back everything inside it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states that the tool rolls back all changes, which is a mutating/destructive behavior. This directly contradicts the annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Annotation Contradiction.
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 two compact sentences in Chinese and English with no filler. The core action and effect are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter paired control tool, the description names its counterpart (begin_undo) and the effect (rollback), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the call. The only weakness is that the annotations conflict with the described behavior, which harms overall completeness.
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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add meaning where no parameters exist.
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 uses a specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('the transaction opened by begin_undo'), and explicitly states the effect: rolling back everything inside it. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling undo/redo/transaction tools.
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 clearly ties this tool to begin_undo, giving the relevant context: it operates on the transaction that begin_undo opened. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the pairing is clear enough for a zero-parameter tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.