add_array

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose side effects and prerequisites. It states the core effect (repeating geometry) but omits that the modifier is applied to the selected/active object, that geometry is instanced, and whether any object must be active. For a mutation tool, this is a significant behavioral gap.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; 'fences, stairs, pillars' is compact but informative. The description is front-loaded with the action and follows with the purpose.

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?

Despite the 7-parameter schema and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only one sentence. It doesn't mention the target object, prerequisites, or how the array parameters combine, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke the tool confidently beyond knowing its basic purpose.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain parameters like count, name, modifier_name, and merge_vertices, but it adds none of that. The only parameter-related information is the abstract 'repeat geometry' phrase; the offset parameters are already described in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter docs.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('an Array modifier'), then clarifies the function ('to repeat geometry') with concrete examples ('fences, stairs, pillars'). This clearly differentiates it from modifier siblings like add_mirror or add_bevel without needing to inspect schemas.

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 examples convey the intended use case (repeating geometry for fences, stairs, pillars), so an agent can infer when to choose this tool. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., generic add_modifier, or mirror instead of array), leaving the usage decision partially to inference.

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