Fix black or inside-out shading by making face normals consistent and outward-facing. Corrects normals on selected objects or named objects.
Make face normals consistent and outward-facing.
Run this when a render shows black or inside-out shading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | No | Object names. Omit to use the current selection. | |
| inside | No | Point normals inward instead |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core effect and the symptom it addresses, but it does not mention side effects such as overwriting custom normals, selection scope, or reversibility. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the usage trigger follows immediately. Every sentence 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 simple mutation tool with two optional parameters and a fully documented schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to apply it; only minor details like side effects and selection scope are left to the schema.
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%, and the schema already documents both `names` and `inside` clearly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Make face normals consistent and outward-facing.' This clearly differentiates it from mesh cleanup, shading, and material tools, and the purpose is unmistakable without opening the schema.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger: 'Run this when a render shows black or inside-out shading.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not name alternative tools or conditions when recalculating normals would be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.