mod_displace

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

Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only and destructive. The description adds useful context: vertices are displaced along normals, and pure strength causes uniform inflation without a map. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not explain modifier stack behavior or reversibility.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a practical caveat. The bilingual duplication is not excessive and the text contains no filler or repeated schema details.

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?

The schema and annotations cover object targeting and destructiveness, and the description explains the geometric effect. However, the description's mention of needing a map/grayscale is problematic because no map parameter exists in the schema, leaving an agent uncertain how to achieve the described rich shapes. The definition is adequate but has a clear practical gap.

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 all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning for 'strength' by linking it to displacement amount and uniform inflation, but it does not clarify how the referenced map/grayscale is supplied given the schema has no map parameter.

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 purpose: a Displace modifier that pushes vertices along normals by strength. It is specific enough to identify the resource and behavior, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling modifier tools such as mod_bend or mod_noise.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about needing a map/grayscale for rich shapes is a capability limitation, not a selection criterion, and no sibling tools are mentioned as alternatives.

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