mod_taper

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds qualitative context by explaining the taper effect, but it does not disclose lifecycle behavior such as whether a modifier is added, replaced, or applied destructively to geometry.

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, and avoids filler. The bilingual Chinese/English repetition is mildly redundant but justifiable for a multilingual tool, and no unnecessary details are present.

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 description plus fully documented schema is enough for a basic call, but it leaves gaps: no usage guidance, no behavior around object selection fallback beyond the schema, and no statement about return values or side effects. It is adequate but not complete for a mutating tool with six parameters.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description's mention of axis and amount adds a little conceptual clarity, but it does not meaningfully deepen the meaning of parameters like direction, limit, name, or objects beyond what the schema supplies.

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 and resource: applying a taper modifier that scales a cross-section along an axis by an amount, producing a thick-to-thin result. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling modifiers like mod_bend, mod_twist, 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 explains what the taper modifier does but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. Given many sibling modifier tools, an agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and effect.

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