set_gn_modifier_input

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it sets a value, implying a mutation, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., modifier must exist), reversibility, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured—there is no additional breakdown or contextual setup, and the brevity does not compensate for missing details.

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 tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'object' and 'modifier' refer to, how to specify the input name, or what value formats are accepted. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context.

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 must explain parameter meanings. It does not elaborate on 'object', 'modifier', 'input', or 'value' beyond the schema's types. The only hint is 'input' being an interface name, but even that is not clarified. The description adds no meaningful semantic value over the raw schema.

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 the action (设置/set) and the resource (几何节点修改器面板上的输入值/input value on Geometry Nodes modifier panel), and notes the method (按接口名/by interface name). It is specific enough to identify the tool's function, but it does not differentiate it from similar siblings like set_geometry_node_input or set_node_input.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., set_geometry_node_input) would be more appropriate.

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