add_constraint_midpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: no mutation semantics, no required permissions, no note on whether the constraint is reversible or how it interacts with existing constraints on the point/line.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than tight editing — there is nothing to front-load because nothing is said.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and a one-line description for a constraint-creation tool with two required parameters. An agent lacks everything needed to call it correctly — which entity moves, what fails, what is returned.

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 the two required parameters. The description adds no meaning: it does not clarify that line_id identifies the line whose midpoint is used or how point_id relates to it, leaving the core semantics of the constraint 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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ("Add a midpoint constraint") without explaining the operation's semantics — e.g. that a point is constrained to the midpoint of a line. It doesn't distinguish itself from the many sibling add_constraint_* tools beyond the word 'midpoint'.

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 on when to use this constraint versus alternatives such as add_constraint_coincident or add_constraint_symmetric, and no preconditions (e.g. point and line must already exist and be unconstrained) are stated.

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