add_modifier

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

No annotations provided. The description states 'non-destructive workflow' and returns a confirmation dict, but does not detail side effects, prerequisites, or what happens on failure. It offers basic behavioral transparency but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a TIP paragraph, parameter descriptions, and return info. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: core function, parameters, return type, and usage guidance for a specific case. It could mention error handling or object existence prerequisites, but overall sufficient.

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 description must add meaning. It describes object_name, modifier_type (with list of valid types), and name (optional custom name). This adds value beyond the schema, though it could specify formatting constraints for modifier_type.

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 a modifier to a mesh object (non-destructive workflow).' It specifies the action (add), resource (modifier to mesh object), and differentiates from sibling tools like booltool_auto_* which handle boolean modifiers immediately.

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 includes a TIP that guides when to use add_modifier vs booltool_auto_* for BOOLEAN type, explicitly stating 'Only use add_modifier with BOOLEAN when you want a non-destructive modifier stack.' This provides clear context and alternatives.

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