remove_modifier

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a key behavioral trait—the modifier is removed without being applied—but does not mention reversibility, what happens to dependent geometry, or any state/permission considerations.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loads the action verb, and delivers the key distinction in six words. Every word earns its place.

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 action is clear and the tool has only two simple parameters, but the absence of an output schema and parameter clarification leaves gaps: the agent does not know what success looks like or which exact identifiers to pass. Adequate for a simple tool, but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not clarify what 'name' refers to (likely an object name) or how 'modifier' should be identified (by name, type, or index). The agent must infer parameter meanings from bare labels, which is risky.

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 verb ('Remove') and resource ('modifier'), and the qualifier 'without applying it' clearly separates it from apply_modifier and apply_all_modifiers. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'without applying it' gives clear contextual guidance for when to use this tool, implicitly contrasting with applying a modifier. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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