add_object_constraint

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information; it conveys the operation type but discloses no side effects, constraint-stack behavior, required target relationships, or error conditions. Since this is a mutating tool, more behavioral context is needed beyond 'Add a constraint'.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, a useful type list, and a labeled Args block; there is no filler. It is a bit long, but each line earns its place by documenting a parameter.

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 six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a workable but incomplete picture: it omits which constraint types require target_name/subtarget, how settings values map to Blender properties, and any validation behavior. It is enough for a simple call but not for reliable advanced use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the Args list is essential; it adds meaning for all six parameters, especially subtarget ('bone name for armature targets') and the enumerated constraint types. However target_name is only restated as 'Target object', and allowed settings keys/property names are left 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 first sentence states the exact operation ('Add a constraint to an object') and the list of common constraint types gives concrete scope. Combined with the object_name parameter, this clearly distinguishes it from sibling add_bone_constraint and other constraint-related tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over add_bone_constraint, remove_object_constraint, setup_ik_chain, or other constraint tools. The description implies usage for object constraints but never states exclusions or alternative routing.

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