add_modifier

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., modifies the scene permanently), prerequisites (object must exist or be selected), or failure modes. It only states the core action, leaving behavioral traits under-specified for a mutation tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes illustrative examples. No redundant words or filler.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a required undocumented parameter, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding. It omits how the object is referenced, any return value, and important behavioral details, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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 explain all parameters. It clarifies that 'modifier' takes a MAXScript class name and that 'params' are optional properties, but it never explains the 'handle' parameter, which is required. This leaves a required parameter undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('add') and names the resource ('modifier') and the input type ('MAXScript class name'), with concrete examples (Edit_Poly, Bend, etc.). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_object or set_property, which operate on different resources.

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 when to use it (to add a modifier to an object) but gives no explicit guidance on alternatives or conditions like object existence or selection. It does not mention when not to use this tool or mention any competing sibling, leaving the routing decision largely to the model.

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