Add a tangent constraint between two entities to make curves touch at a single point. Use when editing CAD geometry to enforce tangency without manual adjustments.
Add a tangent constraint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_a | Yes | ||
| entity_b | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the constraint triggers a solver update, whether it can fail on incompatible geometry, whether existing constraints conflict, or what is returned on success.
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 wasted words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency; there is no structure because there is essentially no 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 two-parameter, mandatory-argument mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 the description says nothing about entity_a/entity_b. The agent cannot tell whether these are entity IDs, names, handles, or what geometric types each may reference.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('Add a tangent constraint'), which is more than a bare tautology, but it adds nothing the tool name doesn't already convey and does not distinguish it from the many sibling constraints (coincident, parallel, perpendicular, concentric). An agent can identify the operation but gains no discriminating information.
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 statement of when to use this constraint versus other constraints, no prerequisites, and no mention of which entity combinations are valid. The usage context is implied only by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.