add_modifier

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

The description adds 'Aman di background' (safe in background), a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. However, it does not explain destructive effects on the modifier stack or that it modifies the object. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description contributes minimal extra context.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently lists supported modifier types. It avoids fluff, though the use of ellipsis after a long list is acceptable. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (19 parameters, 1 required), the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify which parameters apply to which modifier types, does not mention the required object_name parameter, and provides no usage examples or caveats. The output schema exists but does not cover parameter semantics or usage scenarios.

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. It lists modifier types, which are potential values for the modifier_type parameter, but it does not explain the 19 parameters such as object_name, target_object, axes, or angle. The list provides some meaning for one parameter but leaves the rest unexplained.

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 'Add modifier' (Tambah modifier) and lists specific modifier types, establishing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from more specific siblings like add_armature_modifier by being generic, though it could potentially overlap with boolean_operation without explicit differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how to choose between this and related tools like boolean_operation or apply_modifiers. The 'safe in background' note hints at non-interactive use but not at selection criteria.

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