mod_bend

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the core geometric behavior but does not disclose what exactly becomes destructive, whether the modifier can be removed later, or side effects on the object stack. It aligns with annotations without contradicting them.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the core operation, with every sentence carrying useful information. The bilingual formatting is compact and does not introduce redundancy.

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 6-parameter destructive modifier tool, the description covers the primary geometric behavior but omits guidance on when to use it, how it interacts with object selection, and what the modifier application implies. The schema compensates for parameter details, but usage context remains thin.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the relationship between parameters: bending happens along the axis by angle, and direction specifically sets the bend plane. This is not fully captured by the individual parameter descriptions.

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 operation: a bend modifier that bends an object by a given angle around an axis, with direction controlling the bend plane. This distinguishes it from sibling modifier tools like mod_twist or mod_taper by naming the specific geometric behavior.

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 does not say when to use this tool instead of other modifier tools, nor does it mention any alternatives or excluded cases. The intended use is only implied by the function name and basic description.

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