add_armature_modifier

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds useful behavioral context: it is 'background-safe' and performs the operation without weight painting. This clarifies the scope of the operation and execution environment, going beyond the structured annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 concise sentence with a parenthetical note. Every element ('add Armature modifier', 'without weight painting', 'background-safe') carries essential information, with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 tool with only 2 required parameters, the description covers the core action and two key behavioral caveats. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as the object being a mesh or the armature existing, nor error conditions. The context is adequate but not comprehensive, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 by explaining the parameters. It does not explicitly mention object_name or armature_name, nor does it map them to 'mesh' and 'armature' in the text. Although parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, failing to bridge the coverage gap.

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 ('Tambah' = add) and the resource ('modifier Armature ke mesh' = Armature modifier to mesh), and further specifies 'tanpa weight painting' (without weight painting). This distinguishes it from generic modifier tools like add_modifier or weight-painting tools like auto_rig_weight. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 through phrases like 'background-safe' and 'tanpa weight painting' (without weight painting), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_modifier or auto_rig_weight. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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