add_modifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the additive nature but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), error handling, or what happens to existing modifiers. The return value is mentioned, but behavior under failure is absent.

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 relatively concise and well-structured with a bullet list of parameters. However, the list of modifier types could be shortened or referenced externally, but it remains informative and easy to parse.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers parameters and return value but lacks preconditions (object existence, selection state), error scenarios, and potential conflicts with existing modifiers. It provides a functional understanding but misses important context for robust usage.

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 description provides extensive parameter semantics beyond the schema: it explains 'modifier_type' with a list of options, 'modifier_name' as auto-generated if omitted, and gives detailed JSON examples for 'params' across multiple modifier types. This greatly aids an agent in constructing correct inputs.

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 ('Add a modifier to an object') and resource, with specific modifier type examples. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'apply_modifier' by noting the return value is used for later application.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'Returns the modifier name so you can reference it later with apply_modifier', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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