add_modifier

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict this. It adds useful behavioral context by listing supported modifier types and giving per-type param examples, but it does not disclose edge behaviors such as whether adding a modifier with an existing name replaces it or whether the target must already be a mesh object.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for the core purpose, then a focused list of types and parameter examples. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main operation and the most complex parameter, but it lacks explicit documentation for the required object_name field and optional name field, and it does not mention return values or failure behavior. This is adequate for a well-understood task but leaves gaps in a fully self-contained definition.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by enumerating valid modifier_type values and showing concrete params examples for Subsurf, Boolean, and Bevel. It does not explicitly describe object_name or the optional name parameter, but those are reasonably inferable from context.

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 begins with a specific action and resource: 'Add a modifier to a mesh.' The modifier_type list and 'Handles 22 types' make the scope concrete, and the verb 'add' clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings such as remove_modifier, set_modifier_params, and apply_modifier.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_modifier_params for existing modifiers or remove_modifier for deletion. The description only states the action itself, with no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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