blender_modifiers

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

The description states the tool can 'remove or apply' modifiers, which are destructive actions, but the annotation declares destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. The additional note about order and real evaluated stack is useful, but the contradiction overrides it, warranting a score of 1 per the rules.

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—two sentences with no filler. The first sentence lists the actions and resource, and the second adds an important behavioral note. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 schema fully describes parameters and there is no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, the contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation creates an incomplete and potentially misleading picture. It also omits any guidance on parameter interactions (e.g., index for move, value for mute), though the schema covers these.

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?

The input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, including the enum values for action and response_format. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: managing modifiers with specific actions (inspect, mute, reorder, remove, apply) across objects. It identifies the resource (modifiers) and the operation (manage). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like blender_apply_modifier, but the broad scope is evident.

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 a context hint that modifier order changes results and that `list` shows the real evaluated stack, which helps an agent understand when to use `list` for accurate state. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like blender_add_modifier or blender_apply_modifier, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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