add_constraint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or failure modes. The return value is described, but the tool's impact on the scene is not clarified beyond creation.

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 moderately concise but includes a helpful list of constraint types. It front-loads the purpose and then details parameters. Minor redundancy in specifying 'empty string for object-level constraints' could be integrated more succinctly.

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?

The description covers core functionality and return value (output schema exists). However, it omits error handling, prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), or behavioral details like whether constraints can be added multiple times. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, more context would improve usability.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: object_name, bone_name, constraint_type with a list of valid values, and properties as an optional dict. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema property names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('constraint to an object or bone'). It lists constraint types and distinguishes between object-level and bone constraints, setting it apart from siblings like add_modifier or add_bone.

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?

The description explains when to use object_name vs bone_name (e.g., 'Name of the object (armature for bone constraints)') and notes the bone_name default. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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