add_geometry_nodes_modifier

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, read-write operation, so the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether an existing modifier is replaced, how node groups are handled) or special behaviors. No contradiction with annotations.

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 no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place without redundancy.

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 tool with two parameters, no parameter documentation, and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks details about the node group behavior, the role of 'name', and what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, and the description does not compensate. The 'name' parameter is ambiguous (likely the modifier name, but not stated), while 'object_name' is implied by 'ke objek' but not explicitly explained. There is no added meaning beyond the parameter names.

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: adding a Geometry Nodes modifier and node group to an object. It distinguishes from the general add_modifier sibling by specifying the modifier type, though the term 'node group' is ambiguous (whether it creates a new one or uses an existing one).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_modifier or list_gn_modifiers. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the usage context entirely implied by the name.

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