modifier_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the modifier is removed without being applied (i.e., it is deleted from the stack, not applied to the geometry). This is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not disclose other important traits such as destructiveness (beyond obvious deletion), required permissions, or side effects like undo history.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is highly concise and to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite the tool having only two required parameters and low complexity, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what happens to the object's modifier stack, whether the modifier is immediately deleted, or what the return value is (no output schema). Given the presence of many sibling tools for modifiers, the description should provide more context to avoid confusion, especially with the likely redundant 'remove_modifier'.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description adds no explanation beyond the parameter names. 'object_name' and 'modifier_name' are self-explanatory by name, but the description does not provide any additional context such as required format, allowed values, or relationship between parameters. The agent must rely solely on the parameter 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 clearly states the action (remove), the resource (modifier), and the context (from an object without applying it). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'remove_modifier', which likely has a similar purpose. The verb 'Remove' and the phrase 'without applying' help differentiate from modifier_apply but not from other remove tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., object must have the modifier), nor any exclusions or recommendations. The description does not help the agent choose between this and similar modifier tools like modifier_batch_remove or remove_modifier.

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