add_constraint_coincident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says essentially nothing. The term 'coincident' implies that geometry is being made to share a point, but there is no disclosure of preconditions, failure modes, or effects on the model.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. However, for a tool with four required parameters, this brevity reflects under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

With four required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. Nothing compensates for the missing parameter and behavioral information.

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 mentions no parameters at all. The four required parameters (entity_a, point_a, entity_b, point_b) are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving their expected formats (IDs? point names?) ambiguous.

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 'Add a coincident constraint' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name add_constraint_coincident, with no additional detail. It conveys a verb+domain concept but offers nothing to distinguish it from the many sibling constraint tools beyond the word 'coincident' already present in the name.

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 guidance on when to use this constraint versus alternatives such as add_constraint_concentric, add_constraint_tangent, or the many other add_constraint_* siblings. No prerequisites, no context for selection are provided.

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