add_constraint_perpendicular

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: not whether it modifies the model, requires selected entities, resolves geometry, or is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a critical 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 a single short sentence with no padding, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — nothing is front-loaded because nothing of substance is present.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and a large family of near-identical sibling constraint tools, the description is far too thin to support correct invocation.

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% and there are two required parameters (line_a, line_b). The description never mentions them, so the agent must guess what identifiers these expect (handles, names, entity IDs) and how the perpendicular relationship is applied between them.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and a specific constraint type ('perpendicular'), which does distinguish it from siblings like add_constraint_parallel or add_constraint_tangent. However, it does not explain what the constraint does or what geometry it relates, so it only marginally exceeds restating the tool 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other constraint tools, no prerequisites, and no indication of the state the model must be in. The agent is given nothing to route on.

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