Apply a 4x4x4 free-form deformation modifier to objects, offering 64 control points for precise shape manipulation in 3ds Max.
自由变形修改器 4x4x4：64 个控制点，最细腻的 FFD。 [English] Free-form deform 4x4x4: 64 control points, the finest FFD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 修改器名。 | Modifier name. | |
| objects | No | 对象名列表；省略则使用当前选择。 | Object names; omit for selection. | |
| autoExtent | No | 自动适配对象范围，默认是。 | Auto-fit to object extent, default true. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever: it does not say that the modifier is added to objects, that the object stack is modified, or how selection is handled.
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 very short: two sentences in Chinese and English conveying the same information. It is front-loaded and contains no filler; the bilingual repetition is intentional for localization 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 simple modifier tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. Still, it omits usage guidance and explicit behavioral outcomes, and an agent would need to infer the actual effect from the tool name and modifier context.
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%, with all three parameters (name, objects, autoExtent) documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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 identifies an FFD 4x4x4 deformation modifier with 64 control points and marks it as the finest FFD, distinguishing it from the 2x2x2/3x3x3 sibling tools. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'add' or 'apply', so the agent must infer the operation from the 'mod_' prefix and the noun phrase.
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?
There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'The finest FFD' implies a high-detail use case, but no direct comparison or selection criteria are given for mod_ffd_2x2x2 or mod_ffd_3x3x3, and no prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.