apply_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 revealing side effects (e.g., permanent mesh changes, requirement for modifier to exist, or failure behavior). This is nearly a restatement of the name, lacking any deeper behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan. However, its brevity comes at the cost of critical detail, which is a separate concern; as a concise statement, it is appropriately sized.

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 two required parameters and no annotation or schema descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'apply' means in Blender (e.g., baking the modifier into geometry), the need for an existing modifier, or potential errors. Even though an output schema exists, the operational context is missing.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% schema coverage), and the tool description adds no meaning to 'object_name' or 'modifier_name'. It does not specify expected formats, valid values, or how the modifier is identified. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('apply') and the resource ('a modifier to an object'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_modifier or remove_modifier by implying a specific operation (finalizing the modifier). However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or the exact effect, so it stops short of a 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., modifier must already exist), nor does it contrast with add_modifier or set_modifier_param. The agent is left to guess the appropriate context.

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