modifier_apply_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the operation but does not disclose that applying modifiers is destructive (permanent bake), requires certain permissions, or has performance implications. The agent is left unaware of side effects.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include important caveats without becoming verbose.

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 operation (applying all modifiers) and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits important context: modifiers are applied in stack order (mentioned, good), but not that this is destructive, that it may fail if modifiers are invalid, or what the return value indicates. The tool does not describe its output, leaving the agent guessing.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. It does not describe the 'object_name' parameter at all; the name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool description offers no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema's title.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('apply all modifiers') and target ('object'), and specifies ordering ('in stack order'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'apply_modifier' (single) and 'modifier_apply' (likely similar). The verb-resource combination is specific and 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'apply_modifier' for individual modifiers or 'modifier_batch_add' for adding multiple. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., object must have modifiers) or context in which applying all is preferable.

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