add_modifier

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return value ('resulting state and the object's full stack') and a specific failure mode for unknown settings keys. However, it does not mention prerequisites, side effects beyond adding/configuration, or the effect of use_defaults, though 'Add' does imply mutation.

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The action, return behavior, and a notable error case each earn their place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description communicates the postcondition, the return shape, and a key failure mode, while the schema covers all parameter details. It omits selection guidance among specialized modifier tools, but that gap is already reflected in usage_guidelines; for actually invoking the tool, the description is largely sufficient.

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 five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful detail about settings validation — unknown property names fail with valid names — but it does not add meaning for type, use_defaults, or modifier_name beyond what the schema 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 uses a specific verb, 'Add and configure', and names the resource, 'a modifier', so an agent can tell this is a creation tool. It does not explicitly name the generic-vs-specialized relationship with siblings like add_bevel or set_modifier, but the action and the type enum make the purpose clear.

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 explicit guidance about when to use add_modifier instead of the many specialized modifier tools such as add_bevel, add_subdivision, or set_modifier. The phrase 'in one call' implies a convenience path, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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