modifiers-add

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states that a modifier is added. It does not mention ordering, side effects, immediate application, or any prerequisites for the object.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to under-specification elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient context. The schema titles clarify some defaults, but the description alone leaves significant gaps around usage, side effects, and alternatives.

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 by explaining type, name, or object parameters. The word 'object' loosely maps to one input, but type values and defaults are left to the schema titles.

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 gives a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('modifier to an object's stack'), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools such as modifiers-set or modifiers-copy, making the distinction less direct.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are referenced. The only context is the imperative in the description, which is not enough to choose confidently among the many modifier-related siblings.

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