add_constraint_horizontal

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about behavior: whether the constraint is applied immediately, what happens on conflicting constraints, whether it requires a horizontal line, or what the response is. 'Add' implies mutation but no mutation details (permissions, reversibility) are given.

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 one-line description is front-loaded and not padded, but its brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. There is nothing structurally wrong, only too little content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description omits essentially all the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It is markedly under-documented.

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?

The single required parameter line_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all or explain what it identifies. The description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('horizontal constraint'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the large family of sibling constraint tools (add_constraint_coincident, add_constraint_parallel, etc.), leaving the agent to infer selection.

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 the many alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether an entity must already be selected or that only line_id is supplied). Usage must be entirely inferred.

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