modifiers-apply

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'bake' but does not state that applying modifies the mesh permanently and typically removes the modifier from the stack. The irreversible nature of the operation is not disclosed, and there is no mention of how it affects the object's data or whether it can be undone. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 clear sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to conveying the core action. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is not complete. It omits crucial details about the operation's irrevocability, the fact that applying typically removes the modifier, and any prerequisites (e.g., object selection). For a destructive operation, this is a serious omission. The description does not prepare the agent for the tool's side effects.

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 schema has informative titles for both parameters ('Name of the modifier to apply' and 'Object owning the modifier (defaults to active)'), but the description adds no parameter-specific context. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the description does not mention parameters), it fails to compensate, although the schema titles themselves reduce the need. Overall, the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Apply (bake) a modifier into the mesh,' which specifies the verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like modifiers-add, modifiers-set, and modifiers-remove by indicating a permanent baking operation. It is slightly generic but effective.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when applying is appropriate compared to setting visibility or removing a modifier, nor any mention of fallback tools like modifiers-set. The description implies a use case but does not explicitly state it.

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