add_constraint_concentric

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 discloses nothing: not what a concentric constraint does to the referenced circles, whether the entities must already exist, whether existing geometry moves, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a complete gap.

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 short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: a single sentence with no actionable content. It is front-loaded only in the sense that there is nothing else.

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?

A two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions leaves the agent with nothing beyond the name. Everything needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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% for both parameters. 'circle_a' and 'circle_b' are undocumented as to whether they are entity handles, names, IDs, or numeric radia, and the description supplies no compensating detail. An agent cannot reliably format these values.

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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name: 'add_constraint_concentric' -> 'Add a concentric constraint.' It confirms a verb and a resource, but adds no scope, no subject (which two objects get constrained) and no differentiation from the sibling 'mate_concentric', which reads as the same operation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is not told how this differs from mate_concentric, nor whether it applies inside sketches, assemblies, or already-created geometry. Nothing in the text helps choose between it and the other add_constraint_* siblings.

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