mod_noise

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the mutation/destructive profile. The description adds useful detail about displacement behavior but does not explicitly disclose that this appears to add a noise modifier to the object's modifier stack, nor how it interacts with existing modifiers.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the core action and then giving brief parameter hints. The bilingual duplication is understandable for i18n, and the Noise modifier phrase mildly restates the tool name but does not create significant bloat.

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 covers all eight parameters, including the objects selection fallback, and annotations cover the destructive profile. However, the description misses the key side effect that a noise modifier is being added to objects, which is important for later management via sibling tools like mod_remove or mod_list.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only light extra semantics such as fractal adds detail, while not explaining strength defaults, units, or the meaning of the name parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 core action: displace vertices along x/y/z with fractal noise via a noise modifier. This gives a specific verb, resource, and mechanism. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like mod_displace or mod_add, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the tool is for noise-based vertex displacement and explains that fractal adds detail and roughness controls fractal roughness. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternative modifier or displacement tools, and no alternatives are named.

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