set_modifier_param

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely says 'Set an attribute' which implies mutation, but does not describe side effects, error handling (e.g., what happens if modifier is not found), whether changes are reversible, or if any return value is produced. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 no wasted words, and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise but lacks substance. While it is efficient, the extreme terseness contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter context.

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 four required parameters and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what attributes are settable, the expected value types, any constraints (e.g., modifier must exist), or what the output schema contains. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all four parameters (object_name, modifier_name, param, value) are undocumented. The description adds no meaning about these parameters—it does not explain that object_name identifies the object, modifier_name identifies the modifier, or what 'param' and 'value' represent. It fails entirely to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the action (set) and the resource (modifier) specifically, and mentions 'attribute' which aligns with the function name. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_constraint_param by explicitly targeting modifiers. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes an attribute (e.g., by naming the param or value fields), but the core 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., modifier must already exist), typical use cases, or how it differs from alternatives like set_constraint_param or set_shader_node_value. No mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on when to choose this over siblings.

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