mod_twist

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds some behavioral nuance by explaining that bias controls distribution along the length, but it does not clarify whether this adds a new modifier, modifies an existing one, or what side effects occur beyond the annotation.

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 with the core action, and avoids filler. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but acceptable and does not detract significantly from clarity.

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 core behavior, key parameters, and object targeting are reasonably covered, and the schema supplies parameter details. However, it omits whether this tool adds a twist modifier to the stack or modifies existing geometry, and there is no mention of return behavior or the effect of the 'limit' parameter beyond its schema description.

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 documents all six parameters thoroughly, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds a small amount of meaning by elaborating on bias distribution, but otherwise repeats 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 identifies the operation: a twist modifier that rotates an object along an axis by a given angle, with bias controlling distribution. It is specific and unambiguous, but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling modifiers like mod_bend or mod_taper.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mod_bend, mod_taper, or mod_add. The description only states what a twist modifier does, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference.

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