remove_modifier

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

With no annotations, the description must convey side effects, but '删除修改器' only states the action without mentioning whether the deletion is permanent, affects the active object, or can be undone. No error conditions or confirmations are described.

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 redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.

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 lacks essential context such as which objects or modifiers are affected, how to identify them, or what happens after deletion. This makes it incomplete for an agent to use reliably without external knowledge.

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 parameters 'object' and 'modifier' are not described, and the schema provides no additional details. The description does not clarify what values these accept or how they relate to the deletion operation.

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 '删除修改器' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (modifier), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_modifier or apply_modifier. However, it lacks further context about the scope (e.g., active object) that could make it fully 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_geometry_node or set_modifier. The description gives no situational context or prerequisites.

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