mod_ffd_2x2x2

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'deform the object' is consistent with that. It adds useful context about the 8 control points and the companion tool for moving them, but it does not disclose exactly how the modifier stack is affected or whether the change is reversible beyond what the annotations imply.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and the manipulation workflow second. The bilingual duplication is justified, but it prevents a top score since part of the content is repeated in two languages.

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 relatively simple modifier tool, the description combined with a fully documented schema and safety annotations provides enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not cover variant-selection guidance, but that is already captured under usage guidelines, and no output schema is needed here.

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 provides 100% bilingual coverage for all three parameters, including defaults and object-selection behavior, so the description does not need to add much. The description's mention of control points is about the modifier itself, not about parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 explicitly states 'deform the object with 8 control points' and identifies the tool as a free-form deformation 2x2x2 modifier, so the core operation is clear. It distinguishes from sibling FFD variants through the lattice density, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with mod_ffd_3x3x3 or mod_ffd_4x4x4.

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 points to a companion workflow ('Move them via mod_set_sub_object_selection to sculpt') but gives no real guidance on when to use this modifier versus alternatives. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions that would help an agent choose between 2x2x2, 3x3x3, and 4x4x4 FFD modifiers.

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