set_modifier_params

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool updates and returns 'applied/failed', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain whether params are merged or fully replaced, what happens on failure, or any side effects of the update, leaving meaningful gaps.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the operation and includes the return indication 'applied/failed'. There is no filler or redundant wording; every part 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?

For a tool with an unconstrained params object, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this description is too sparse. It does not explain how to construct params, what object_name and modifier_name refer to precisely, or what the full return value looks like beyond 'applied/failed'. An agent would need to guess at the params structure.

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 compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only mentions 'params' generically and gives no detail about the expected object structure, accepted keys, or how they map to modifier settings. object_name and modifier_name are somewhat self-explanatory, but the free-form params object is left completely unspecified.

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 'Update' and the resource 'params on an existing modifier', which distinguishes it from sibling modifier tools like add_modifier, remove_modifier, and apply_modifier. The phrase 'existing modifier' reinforces that this is for modifying already-created modifiers, not creating or deleting them.

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 description implies usage through 'existing modifier' — you use this when a modifier already exists and needs parameter changes. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like add_modifier, move_modifier, or apply_modifier. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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