collapse_stack

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

While the annotations already set destructiveHint=true, the description adds critical context by explicitly stating that 'This permanently destroys the editability of every modifier.' This goes beyond the bare hint, explaining exactly what is lost (modifier editability) and reinforcing the irreversibility. The description also clarifies the baking process, which is valuable behavioral detail.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences (bilingual). It front-loads the core action and then presents the critical warning. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 destructive, single-purpose tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, the irreversible consequence, and the parameter default behavior (via schema). An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 already describes the only parameter 'objects' with 'Object names; omit to use the current selection.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. The description doesn't add further semantic nuance beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Collapse (apply and delete) the entire modifier stack of an object, baking the result into the base object.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('entire modifier stack') distinguishes it from sibling tools like mod_remove or mod_disable, which target individual modifiers. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 a usage condition ('only do it when you are happy with the result') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It implies that it's a final destructive step, but there is no guidance toward sibling tools for less destructive modifier management, such as mod_remove for removing a single modifier. This leaves some inference to the agent.

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