Create a blend material that combines two materials using a mask, and assign it to objects.
创建一个 Blend（混合）材质，用于把两种材质按遮罩混合。 [English] Create a Blend material that mixes two materials by a mask.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 材质名称。 | Material name. | |
| objects | No | 创建后赋给这些对象；省略则不赋值。 | Assign to these objects after creation; omit to skip. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no side-effect context: it does not explain whether existing material assignments are overwritten, whether source materials must already exist, or what assigning to objects will do. It mostly restates the creation behavior rather than disclosing additional traits.
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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The Chinese and English versions duplicate the same content, but this is acceptable for a bilingual definition and does not harm clarity.
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 create tool, the description omits the conceptual model: an agent has no idea that the two materials and mask must be configured separately afterward, and no output or failure behavior is described. Since there is no output schema, the description should carry more of this burden.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters. A notable omission is that it never explains how the two materials and mask are specified, since the tool only exposes name and objects.
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: 'Create a Blend material' and explains the defining behavior: 'mixes two materials by a mask.' This is enough to distinguish it from other material creation siblings like mat_create_standard or mat_create_multi_sub, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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 phrase '用于把两种材质按遮罩混合' gives an implied use case, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as mat_create_multi_sub or mat_create_shellac, nor any exclusions or preconditions. An agent must infer the selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.