blender_modifier_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly communicates that the operation permanently alters mesh geometry, which signals destructiveness. It does not mention that applying a modifier typically removes it from the modifier stack or that the operation is generally irreversible except through undo.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. The core action and its permanent consequence are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

The definition is adequate for a basic two-parameter operation, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it omits useful operational details such as that applying typically removes the modifier, that the object must support the modifier type, and what happens on failure or when the modifier cannot be applied.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions 'Name of the object' and 'Name of the modifier' are present but minimal, and the main description adds only general context about applying a modifier rather than clarifying either parameter further.

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 and resource: applying a modifier permanently to mesh geometry. It distinguishes itself from siblings like blender_modifier_add, blender_modifier_configure, and blender_modifier_remove by emphasizing permanence, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 word 'permanently' implies the appropriate use case: when the modifier's effect should be baked into the mesh rather than kept configurable. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative modifier operations to prefer.

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