Move a modifier to a specific stack position by specifying target object, modifier, and new index. Reorder modifiers to control their application order and achieve desired results.
Move a modifier to a specific position in the stack.
Args: object_name: Target object. modifier_name: Modifier to move. new_index: Target position (0-based).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_index | Yes | ||
| object_name | Yes | ||
| modifier_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core behavior—moving a named modifier to a 0-based position in the stack—but it does not mention what happens when the modifier or object does not exist, whether the operation is undoable, or what result/return the agent should expect.
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 main behavior is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a tight three-line argument list. Every line earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 three-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what action is performed and how each parameter maps to it. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing error cases or side effects.
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 parameter lines must add meaning, and they do: object_name is the target object, modifier_name is the modifier to move, and new_index is explicitly 0-based. This is sufficient for correct invocation, though it is terse and does not clarify valid index bounds.
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 first sentence, 'Move a modifier to a specific position in the stack,' uses a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations that add, remove, configure, or apply modifiers. The parameter list reinforces the operation's scope.
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 use case is implied by the action and by sibling names like add_modifier/remove_modifier, but the description never explicitly says 'use this when you need to reorder an existing modifier stack' or names alternatives. There is no exclusion guidance for when another modifier tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.