blender_apply_modifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without mentioning side effects, error behavior, or whether modifiers are additive or replaced. It does not clarify if the tool fails silently or requires existing objects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that puts the primary action first and lists supported modifier types concisely. There is no verbosity or redundant information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain return values, what happens if the object does not exist, whether the operation is reversible, or how configuration parameters interact with specific modifier types. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for all properties, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the modifier types (already in the enum) and hints at configuration via examples, but the schema already includes those examples. No extra parameter insight is provided.

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 action ('attaches and configures'), the resource ('procedural modifier'), and the target ('mesh object'), while enumerating the supported modifier types. This differentiates it from sibling tools that handle cameras, primitives, or materials.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_execute_bpy, which could also apply modifiers via scripting. The description offers no context for selection or exclusion criteria.

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