modifiers-copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Copy a modifier in the stack' implies duplication, but it does not explain whether the copy is added immediately below the original, whether it inherits all settings, what naming conventions apply, or whether any context like active object matters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core action, which is appropriate for a simple mutation 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?

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks behavioral expectations, default naming behavior, stack placement, or any note about how the result is reflected. It is minimally viable for identifying the action but not complete for an AI agent to invoke it confidently.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the input schema. The schema titles already indicate that 'name' identifies the modifier, 'object' defaults to the active owner, and 'new_name' renames the copy. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('copy') and resource ('a modifier in the stack'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also differentiates from sibling tools such as modifiers-add, modifiers-move, and modifiers-remove, since copying is a distinct operation on an existing modifier.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like modifiers-add, modifiers-move, or modifiers-apply. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection requirements, or situations where copying is preferred over other operations.

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