apply_modifiers

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds some context by stating 'all modifiers' are baked to 'mesh data', but it does not disclose that the modifiers are likely removed or that the geometry becomes permanently altered. This is additional but not rich behavioral detail beyond the 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 short sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, earning its place without any 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?

Given the tool is destructive and has a required parameter, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral consequences beyond what annotations already provide. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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 explain what object_name refers to. It is reasonable to infer object_name is the mesh to bake modifiers onto from the tool's purpose, but the description itself contributes no explicit parameter meaning. The parameter is left entirely to the schema field name, which is insufficient when coverage is zero.

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 'Bakar semua modifier ke data mesh' clearly states the tool bakes all modifiers to mesh data, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_modifier, list_modifiers, and remove_modifier, which concern managing modifiers rather than permanently applying them.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_modifier or boolean_operation. The description is purely declarative and offers no context for selecting it over other modifier-related operations.

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