set_modifier

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes that angles are in degrees, providing minimal value. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, what happens if the modifier doesn't exist, or any side effects.

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 plus a note, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than concise 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?

For a tool with a generic settings object, three required parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain parameter meanings, accepted settings, or behavioral expectations, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, but it does not. It only hints that angles are in degrees, which likely relates to the settings object, but it does not clarify what 'name', 'modifier', or 'settings' mean, leaving the agent without sufficient information to populate them correctly.

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 states a specific action ('Change settings') on a specific resource ('existing modifier'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like add_modifier or remove_modifier. It also adds a useful unit convention for angles, reinforcing its purpose.

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 word 'existing' implies the tool is for modifying already-added modifiers, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like add_modifier or specific modifier tools. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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