add_constraint_parallel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state that this creates a persistent geometric relation, whether it modifies existing geometry, what selection state is required, or what errors occur when the inputs cannot be made parallel.

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-sentence form is brief but under-specified rather than economical. It spends no words on the information needed to invoke the tool and offers only a fragment of the name restated.

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 constraint-creation tool with two undocumented required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the input contract, behavioral effects, and sibling differentiation that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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, line_a and line_b. The description never mentions them, so an agent cannot learn what the two strings represent (entity IDs, names, handles) or what makes them valid inputs.

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 parallel constraint' merely restates the tool name verbatim. It does not clarify what entity types are constrained, how it differs from siblings like add_constraint_perpendicular or mate_parallel, or what the resulting constraint means. The agent learns nothing beyond 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent cannot tell whether this applies to sketch lines, 3D edges, or assembly components, nor when to choose it over the many other constraint and mate tools.

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