add_modifier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: exact booleans hide the cutter, and the stack is auto-ordered (booleans/mirror/solidify before bevel/subdivision). That is genuine added value, but it omits failure modes, reversibility/undo behavior, and how conflicts with existing modifiers are handled.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place by naming concrete default behaviors. The parenthetical is dense but compact.

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 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key defaults and ordering behavior adequately. It is still missing sibling routing and error/reversibility context, leaving some gaps an agent would want.

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 60% and the params field already documents shortcuts, angles, and accepted types. The description adds the default behaviors applied per modifier type but does not map meaning onto the object/name/apply parameters beyond what the schema states, so it sits at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb+resource (add a modifier) and adds the distinguishing feature of quality defaults with auto-ordering. However, it never differentiates from the sibling manage_modifiers, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which tool to pick for the same task.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative manage_modifiers. 'Quality defaults' implies a use case but leaves the agent to infer when to prefer this over manually managing modifiers.

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