add_constraint

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

Annotations already communicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only nature (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It doesn't explain how adding a constraint affects the object, if it replaces existing constraints, or if it requires a valid target. This is a gap given the tool's mutation potential.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word serves a purpose, and the example constraint types add useful specificity without extra fluff.

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 five parameters and a destructive mutation, the description is far too sparse. It omits any context about object selection, target requirements, or the meaning of 'subtarget' and 'influence'. The output schema exists, but the description still fails to convey enough operational context for a complex tool.

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 only lists constraint types, which partially explains 'constraint_type'. It does not clarify 'object_name', 'target_name', 'influence', or 'subtarget'. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description should have compensated for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for parameters like 'influence' and 'subtarget'.

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 clearly states the tool adds a constraint, with a specific verb 'Tambah' (Add) and resource 'constraint', and lists example types (COPY_LOCATION, COPY_TRANSFORMS, TRACK_TO, IK). It is distinct from sibling tools like add_modifier or add_bone, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself for potential overlap with setup_ik_chain.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like setup_ik_chain may be more appropriate for specific IK setups, but the description offers no such context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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