asset.add_modifier

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

Annotations are all neutral/false, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavior: 'Creates new GLB, BLEND, and FBX files without changing the input' (non-destructive) and 'Parameters for the other modifier are rejected' plus per-type range constraints. This exceeds what annotations convey, though it omits any mention of auth or failure modes.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose and restriction are front-loaded, and modifier-specific parameter constraints occupy the second paragraph. Every sentence adds distinct 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?

With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotation safety info, the description covers the informative parts: parameter ranges, defaults, rejection semantics, and the non-destructive output behavior. The implicit parameters are low-risk, and the output schema exists, so nothing critical is missing 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains width (0..1000), segments (1..16, defaults 0.1/3), and ratio (0.01..1, default 0.5), and clarifies that cross-type parameters are rejected — real meaning beyond the bare schema. input_path, output_directory, and target are left implicit, but they are self-evident string 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?

States a specific verb (Add), constrained resource (only Bevel or Decimate modifier), and precise scope (exact target mesh objects). The 'only' qualifier plus the enumerated modifier types sharply distinguishes it from the sibling set, none of which concern modifiers.

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 when to use it — when a Bevel/Decimate modifier must be added to a mesh — but never names alternatives or gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Differentiation from siblings is implicit by domain (no sibling is modifier-related) rather than stated.

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