manage_modifiers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait — that applying a boolean deletes its hidden cutter if unused — which is valuable, but it says nothing about the destructive nature of remove, permissions, reversibility, or what update changes.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the capability is front-loaded and the non-obvious boolean side effect is called out immediately after. Well sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover behavior and results, and it only partially does. For a five-parameter, six-action tool with no annotations, the omission of move/apply_all semantics and update behavior leaves meaningful gaps.

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 60%, with name, index, and params documented in the schema itself. The description maps some verbs to the action enum (list/update/remove/apply) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema and omits the move/apply_all actions and the meaning of index.

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?

States specific verbs (list/tweak/remove/apply) operating on the resource 'modifiers', so the agent knows it is a multi-action management tool rather than a creation tool like the sibling add_modifier. The description omits two enum actions (apply_all, move), so it does not fully enumerate what the tool does, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_modifier, nor any indication of prerequisites or when each action is appropriate. The listed actions imply usage, but nothing tells the agent which one to pick or when not to use this tool.

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