configure_modifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'configures settings' without mentioning whether it mutates the modifier, merges or replaces existing settings, requires the object to be active, or what happens on failure. The lack of any behavioral detail for a mutation tool is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, which is structurally efficient. However, brevity here results from under-specification rather than careful trimming—it omits essential context. It's not verbose, but it doesn't earn its place because it fails to inform the agent beyond the bare names.

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 three parameters, a nested dict, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'settings', what values are accepted, whether the modifier must exist, or how the tool behaves in edge cases. An agent would have to guess or experiment to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It restates the three parameter names and gives a one-line type for settings ('Dict of setting_name: value pairs'), which adds minimal value over the schema. It doesn't explain what object_name refers to (e.g., a scene object), what modifier_name must match, or what setting keys are valid. The description essentially paraphrases the schema without enriching it.

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 clear verb ('configure') and a specific resource ('existing modifier'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_modifier, remove_modifier, or reorder_modifier. It implies the modifier already exists, which is a useful scoping detail. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'settings' means or how they relate to the modifier, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used after a modifier is added, nor does it reference any sibling tools or conditions that would select this over add_modifier or set_material_property. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and the single sentence.

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