set_modifier_property

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

The idempotentHint annotation indicates repeated calls have no additional effect, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not describe what happens when the property does not exist, how values are cast, or whether changes are immediate. The examples are property-name guidance, not behavioral disclosure.

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 two short sentences front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a useful example clause. It contains no redundant phrases and all sentences earn their place.

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?

For a simple setter tool, the description covers the core function and key parameter semantics. However, it lacks details about error behavior (e.g., missing modifier/property), accepted value formats, and any return value, though an output schema exists. The lack of usage guidance also limits completeness.

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 no descriptions for its four parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the 'property' parameter by stating that property names are Blender API names and providing concrete examples. However, it does not explain object/modifier references or value type handling (the 'value' parameter accepts five heterogeneous types), leaving gaps for half the parameters.

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 action ('Set') and resource ('a modifier property'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling property setter tools like set_material_property or set_light_property. The supplementary examples ('levels' for SUBSURF, 'count' for ARRAY) reinforce this specific domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., adding a modifier first), nor does it differentiate itself from other property setters in the sibling list. The description merely restates the tool's function without usage context.

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