add_constraint_vertical

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies a mutating 'add' operation. It says nothing about whether the constraint is idempotent, what happens if line_id does not reference a valid line entity, whether the constraint can later be removed, or how failure is reported.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency. It is not padded, yet it conveys almost nothing beyond the title.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the definition is far too thin. It omits validation rules, error semantics, and any indication of how the new constraint relates to existing geometry, leaving the agent to guess at 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 the single required parameter line_id is undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention line_id at all, so it neither explains that it must be the ID of an existing line entity nor compensates for the coverage gap. Only the self-evident parameter name carries meaning.

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 and resource ("Add a vertical constraint"), so its purpose is legible. But it essentially restates the tool name verbatim and does no work to distinguish it from the many sibling constraint tools (add_constraint_horizontal, add_constraint_concentric, add_constraint_coincident), all of which share the same 'add_constraint_*' pattern.

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 versus add_constraint_horizontal or the other constraint siblings, no prerequisites (e.g. that the referenced geometry must already exist), and no conditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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