add_modifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. It states that the tool adds a modifier but does not disclose side effects, such as modifying the object's modifier stack, potential overwriting, or destructiveness. It also fails to mention prerequisites like object selection or any irreversible consequences. This lack of transparency is a significant 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 concise and well-structured, with the action stated first and additional details provided in a compact parenthetical and a short follow-up sentence. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to scan. The structure is highly efficient for a simple operation.

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 description gives enough context for a basic add-modifier operation, including type examples and notes on object referencing and settings format. However, it lacks details on the 'name' parameter, the expected behavior of the settings dictionary, and any return values or side effects. Given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, this is a moderate level of completeness.

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 partially explains the parameters: it notes that the 'object' parameter takes an object name directly, and the 'settings' parameter uses bpy property names. It also provides example values for 'type' and states there are 83 total types. However, the 'name' parameter is not explained, and the structure of 'settings' is only vaguely described. Since the schema has no parameter descriptions, this partial compensation earns a moderate score.

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 clearly states that the tool adds a modifier and lists common modifier types (SUBSURF, BEVEL, ARRAY, etc.) along with a total count of 83. It uses the specific verb 'add' and the resource 'modifier,' making it distinct from sibling operations like apply_modifier or remove_modifier. The 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?

The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_modifier, remove_modifier, or add_geometry_node. It only states the function and parameter hints, with no mention of conditions or contexts where this tool is preferred. Thus, there is no usage guidance.

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