remove_modifier

Does 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 states the action but doesn't disclose what happens if the modifier doesn't exist, whether the operation is destructive (it removes something), whether it can be undone, or any side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't add behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 concise, with a one-sentence summary followed by a compact parameter list. It's front-loaded with the action and avoids unnecessary words. The parameter explanations are minimal but present.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is adequate at a basic level, but it lacks important context: no mention of error handling (e.g., modifier not found), no confirmation of success, no note about whether the modifier is permanently removed or just disabled, and no guidance on how this relates to the modifier workflow (add → configure → apply → remove). Given the large sibling list, a bit more context would help an agent 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for both parameters ('Target object' and 'Name of the modifier to remove'), which adds some meaning beyond the schema's bare property names. However, it doesn't clarify the expected format (e.g., exact object name vs. path, modifier name case sensitivity) or provide examples.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove a modifier from an object') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_modifier, configure_modifier, apply_modifier, and reorder_modifier by focusing on removal, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 usage context: it's for removing modifiers, which is distinct from adding, configuring, applying, or reordering them. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., the modifier must exist on the object).

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