add_modifier

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action and lists parameters, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the modifier is appended to the stack, if it fails on missing objects, or if it is destructive). It also does not describe the return value or any requirements like object existence.

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 concise: one sentence for the purpose plus a structured Args block. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. The examples are useful without being verbose.

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 tool with varied modifier types and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but omits important context such as modifier stack behavior, error conditions, or any return value. It is adequate for simple usage but incomplete for complex scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters, including concrete examples for 'params' (e.g., SUBSURF and BEVEL settings). This goes beyond the bare schema and gives the agent actionable guidance.

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 the verb 'Add' and the resource 'modifier' clearly, and lists valid modifier types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like configure_modifier or apply_modifier, so it lacks the explicit sibling distinction that would earn a 5.

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 intended usage is implied: you use this tool when you want to add a new modifier to an object. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as configure_modifier or add_geometry_nodes_modifier, nor any exclusions or conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.