mod_add

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is mutating and destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by disclosing stack-append behavior and the extra-top-level-parameter property mechanism. This is useful behavioral detail that the annotations cannot express, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with three sentences per language covering the core action, naming convention, dynamic properties, and stack position. Every sentence carries information, and the bilingual duplication is purposeful for the target audience.

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 the basic case the description plus schema are sufficient to know what object, modifier name, and optional parameters to provide. However, the contradiction between the described extra-parameter mechanism and the schema's `additionalProperties: false` leaves an agent unsure whether property-setting calls are valid, so the definition is not fully reliable.

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 schema covers all four parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description creates a serious conflict by telling callers to pass extra top-level parameters as modifier properties while the schema declares `additionalProperties: false`. Additionally, the schema's `params` field is typed as an array of strings but described as a 'name->value object', and the description does not resolve that inconsistency.

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 opens with a concrete action and target: 'Add a modifier to an object' and immediately specifies the naming convention with examples (Bend, TurboSmooth, Shell). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling modifier-management tools by stating that mod_add appends to the top of the stack and pointing to mod_reorder for repositioning.

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 gives clear operational guidance: use the 3ds Max class name, pass extra top-level parameters as modifier properties, and use mod_reorder when the modifier must go below existing ones. It does not explicitly contrast mod_add with dedicated shortcuts like mod_bend or mod_shell, so it misses some when-not-to-use guidance.

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