Bake a modifier into the mesh permanently. View before/after geometry counts to assess the impact, as the change is irreversible without undo.
Bake a modifier into the mesh. IRREVERSIBLE without undo or a checkpoint.
Returns before/after geometry counts so you can see what it cost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| modifier | Yes | ||
| force_multi_user | No | Make shared mesh data single-user first |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that the operation is "IRREVERSIBLE without undo or a checkpoint" and explains the return value (before/after geometry counts). This meaningfully reveals destructive behavior and output semantics, though it could go further by noting exactly what state changes occur.
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 well-structured sentences with no filler. The action and warning are front-loaded, and the return-value note earns its place. Every word contributes.
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?
Despite being concise, the description is not complete enough for a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage. The agent still lacks clarity about the required parameters and any prerequisites or error conditions. The irreversibility warning and return-count note are helpful, but the definition leaves too much unspecified.
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 low at 33%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `name` and `modifier` parameters. It does not; it never clarifies whether `name` is the object name, modifier name, or something else, nor what format `modifier` expects. Only `force_multi_user` is described in the schema. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.
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 and resource: "Bake a modifier into the mesh." It clearly names the operation and target, and the singular "a modifier" implicitly distinguishes it from `apply_all_modifiers`. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5, but there is no real ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you want to permanently bake a modifier into a mesh. However, it does not explain when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like `add_modifier`, `apply_all_modifiers`, `undo`, or checkpoints. The irreversible warning is useful context but not explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.