add_constraint_fixed

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. It says nothing about what a fixed constraint does to the entity (locking it in place), whether it's reversible, what permissions or preconditions are needed, or how it interacts with other constraints. 'Add a fixed constraint' restates the name with zero added context.

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?

Extremely short — only four words. It's front-loaded but so under-specified that brevity reflects omission rather than efficiency.

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 geometry constraint tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no explanation of the fixed-constraint semantics is far too thin. The description leaves the agent unable to distinguish this from a dozen sibling constraint tools or to know what the constraint actually does.

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 description must compensate, but it doesn't mention entity_id at all. An agent cannot infer from the description that it must supply an entity identifier, nor what value format is expected.

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?

States a verb (Add) and resource (fixed constraint), which is broader than a tautology but adds no differentiation. Among ~15 sibling add_constraint_* tools (coincident, parallel, tangent, etc.), 'fixed' is not explained — the agent can't tell what a fixed constraint does versus the others from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. The description doesn't mention that the entity must exist or that this anchors geometry in place.

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