remove_modifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool removes a modifier, but does not disclose whether the operation is permanent, what happens if the modifier does not exist, or whether removal affects the object's rendered state. For a mutating operation, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 conveying the action, the target, and the matching criterion, which is ideal for a simple two-parameter 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 low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and parameter roles. But with no annotations, it lacks caveats about failure behavior, prerequisites, and side effects, leaving an agent to infer important operational details.

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 0%, so the description is the only semantic source for the two parameters. It maps 'object' to the target object and 'modifier' to the modifier name, with 'by name' clarifying the expected modifier input. However, it does not explain the accepted identifier format for object or whether modifier lookup is exact or case-sensitive.

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 ('Remove') and a clear resource ('a modifier from an object'), and adds 'by name' to specify how the modifier is identified. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_modifier, set_modifier_property, toggle_modifier_visibility, and apply_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 intended use is implied by the action: use this when a modifier should be removed from an object. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention that the object and modifier must already exist, and no reference to alternatives such as toggle_modifier_visibility for non-destructive hiding.

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