modifier_add

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It informs that parameters are validated and invalid ones are caught before sending to Blender, which is useful. However, it omits side effects (e.g., does it modify the object directly?), undo behavior, or requirements like object selection, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a brief overview of capabilities, and a detailed Args section. It is front-loaded with the most important information. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'validated parameters' appears twice) but overall efficient and not overly long.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function, supported modifier types, validation behavior, and parameter details. It references a related tool (modifier_list_types) for further options, which helps context. It lacks information on return values or post-conditions, but is generally complete for a modification tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning to all four parameters. It explains object_name, modifier_type (with a list of valid types), modifier_name (auto-generated if empty), and params (dictionary of overrides, referencing modifier_list_types). This goes beyond the bare schema, though the params property could have more specific structure details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add a modifier to an object with validated parameters.' It specifies the action (add), resource (modifier), and includes unique details like type checking and range validation, which distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like add_modifier. The listing of 15 specific modifier types adds further clarity.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_modifier, modifier_batch_add). It mentions validation and parameter options, but lacks context on prerequisites, suitability, or exclusions. Users are left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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