add_constraint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('Dict with the created constraint's name and type') and the object/bone scoping rule, but says nothing about failure modes (missing object/bone), idempotency, or whether the operation is reversible, which matters for a state-changing tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then structured Args/Returns blocks. Every element earns its place; the enum list is long but necessary given 0% schema coverage. Slightly docstring-heavy formatting but not wasteful.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the definition covers all inputs plus return shape. The only gap is behavioral detail (errors, prerequisites) that an agent would want before invoking a constraint-creation call.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: it explains object_name, bone_name (empty string for object-level constraints), the full constraint_type enum, and gives example property keys (target, subtarget, chain_count, influence). It adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 and resource ('Add a constraint to an object or bone') and immediately clarifies the object-vs-bone scope. It does not name an alternative sibling, but no other constraint-adding tool exists in the sibling list, so the purpose stands on its own.

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 says what the tool does but never says when to reach for it versus adjacent tools like add_modifier or set_bone_property, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing an armature for bone constraints beyond a parenthetical. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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