add_constraint_symmetric

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, yet it says nothing about what happens to the referenced entities, whether it requires an axis of symmetry, whether it is reversible, or how failures are reported. It merely echoes the name.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, so there is no wasted prose. But its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication — it is minimal to a fault for a 3-parameter mutation tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without the minimum information needed to call this tool correctly. The context signals show all three parameters are required, which the description never acknowledges.

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 all three parameters (entity_a, entity_b, axis) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description gives no hint that a symmetric constraint relates two entities about an axis, leaving the semantics of every parameter opaque.

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 resource (symmetric constraint), so the operation is identifiable. However, it adds nothing beyond the tool name itself and does not distinguish it from the many sibling constraint tools in any meaningful way.

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 alternatives (e.g. concentric, parallel, equal) and no mention of prerequisites or the modelling context in which a symmetric constraint applies. Only implied usage from the name.

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