modifier.configure

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3', which is generic harness metadata. It does not disclose that this mutates an existing modifier, whether it requires a transaction, how it interacts with scene revisions, or what happens on failure. With no annotations covering the mutation semantics, the description carries the burden and fails to disclose the core behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the command name, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The sentence 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and the requirements reminder are generic boilerplate that could apply to any harness command, so they do not earn their place. A 3 reflects that it is brief and readable but wastes its few words on non-specific metadata.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested settings oneOf with 7 modifier types, output schema present), the description is far too thin. It does not explain the modifier types supported, the relationship between modifierName and settings, whether objectId is required, or how transactions and scene revisions factor in. The output schema exists, but the input semantics are largely unexplained, making this incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain what modifierName refers to, how settings maps to modifier types, what objectId is needed for, or the role of _expectedSceneRevision. The schema's oneOf for settings provides some structure, but the description adds zero semantic value for the 8 parameters, leaving agents to guess which modifier types are supported and how to target the right object.

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 only states the command name and risk/maturity level, without explaining what configuring a modifier actually does. It does not mention that it modifies an existing modifier's settings on an object, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling tools like blender_modifier_add, blender_modifier_apply, or blender_modifier_set_enabled. The verb 'configure' is generic and the resource is only implied by the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for adjusting an existing modifier's parameters, nor does it contrast with blender_modifier_add (create), blender_modifier_apply (bake), or blender_modifier_set_enabled (toggle). The only usage-related statement is a generic reminder that per-request argument checks and session policy apply, which is not tool-specific guidance.

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