add_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 only states the action without any detail on side effects, return values, constraints, or what happens on conflict (e.g., whether the modifier is appended or replaces an existing one). This is insufficient for an agent to predict consequences.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise, though so brief that it borders on under-specification. For conciseness alone, it is well-structured.

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?

Given the large set of modifier-related tools and the complete lack of parameter documentation, this description is inadequate. It does not specify the modifier types, whether the object must already exist, or the purpose of extra_params. Even though an output schema may exist, the agent still lacks the essential context to call this tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter. The properties (name, type, object_name, extra_params) are bare in the schema, and the description adds nothing about what 'type' means (presumably modifier type), what 'object_name' targets, or how 'extra_params' should be structured. The agent has no semantic guidance beyond the field names.

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 'Add a modifier to an object.' which clearly identifies the verb (add) and the resource (modifier on an object). It is direct and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar modifier tools like set_modifier_param or apply_modifier, but the verb 'add' is distinct enough. Lacks specificity about which modifier types are supported, so not a full 5.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as set_modifier_param, remove_modifier, apply_modifier, or list_modifiers. There is no context about prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without direction.

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