mod_editpoly

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

The description explicitly calls the worklow 'non-destructive,' while the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which is a direct contradiction. It also does not clarify that adding the modifier mutates the stack or what side effects occur, so an agent cannot rely on the description for safe behavior.

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 short, front-loaded, bilingual, and contains no filler. The core action appears first and the parenthetical workflow hint earns its place by connecting the tool to the poly_* tool family.

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 two-parameter tool, the main workflow is covered and the schema fills in parameter details. However, the destructiveHint/non-destructive contradiction leaves a material ambiguity, and there is no explicit statement about stack placement or default modifier naming behavior.

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 100%: both name and objects already have clear parameter descriptions. The description adds workflow context but no parameter-specific semantics, so it hits the baseline without going beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action—adding an Edit Poly modifier to the modifier stack—and characterizes it as non-destructive polygon editing. It also distinguishes the tool from the poly_* direct-editing tools and from a destructive editable-poly conversion, so an agent can tell what resource it acts on.

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 states the intended use: add a non-destructive Edit Poly modifier to the stack, then drive it later with sub-object selections via poly_* tools. It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative like convert_to_editable_poly, so it stops short of a 5.

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