Disable a named modifier in 3ds Max while keeping it applied. Target selected objects or specify object names to make the modifier inactive without removing it.
禁用（保留但不生效）指定修改器。 [English] Disable (keep but make ineffective) the named modifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objects | No | 对象名列表；省略则使用当前选择。 | Object names; omit to use the current selection. | |
| modifier | Yes | 修改器名/类名/索引。 | Modifier name / class name / index. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: destructiveHint is true, but the description explicitly says 'keep but make ineffective', which implies a reversible, non-destructive operation. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent about whether the modifier is destroyed or merely toggled off.
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 short parallel sentences in Chinese and English, with the action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical 'keep but make ineffective' adds essential semantic nuance without bloat.
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 simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient in scope. However, the contradiction with destructiveHint leaves the operation's real-world effect ambiguous, which prevents a higher score.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both modifier and objects parameters. The description adds only the word 'named' to qualify the modifier, which does not meaningfully improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Disable'), a specific resource ('modifier'), and a clarifying qualifier ('keep but make ineffective') that distinguishes it from mod_remove and mod_enable. An agent can infer exactly what the tool does without inspecting sibling definitions.
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 'keep but make ineffective' gives clear context that this tool is for temporary deactivation rather than removal. It does not explicitly name mod_remove or mod_enable as alternatives or state when not to use them, but the semantic contrast is strong enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.