modifier.set_enabled

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the command name and generic risk/maturity labels. It does not explain what 'set_enabled' does to modifiers, whether it mutates state, what side effects exist, or any permission or ordering requirements. Annotations exist but are not enriched by the description.

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 but not usefully concise; it omits the essential purpose and behavior. This is under-specification rather than efficient brevity, and the only substantive content (risk/maturity) is not front-loaded in terms of agent decision-making value.

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?

Even with an output schema and annotations present, the core purpose of the tool is undisclosed emerging from the name alone. An agent cannot correctly decide to invoke this tool without knowing what enabling a modifier means, which arguments are required, or what the operation affects. This is critically incomplete.

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 33%, and the description provides no explanation of the nine parameters (e.g., `name`, `render`, `viewport`, `objectId`, `modifierName`). With such low coverage, the description was expected to compensate by clarifying parameter roles, but it does not.

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 is a tautology, restating the tool name ('PartMe Blender Harness command `modifier.set_enabled`') without any verb or resource indicating what the tool actually does. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like blender_modifier_configure or blender_modifier_apply.

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 like blender_modifier_list or blender_modifier_configure. The only additional note ('Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply') is generic policy boilerplate, not usage context.

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