Add constraint

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description confirms and elaborates by saying the tool appends rather than replaces. It adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: constraints persist and are surfaced by change_status in later chats. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action and an illustrative example are front-loaded, and the persistence rationale is stated in one concise second sentence. Every part adds value.

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 small append-only tool, the description plus fully documented schema covers how to use it, what the constraint is for, and how it will be visible afterward. With no output schema, it does not describe the return value, but that is low-stakes for this operation and does not impede 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the text parameter's intended form with an example and explains persistence, but it does not add new details about changeId or workspace beyond what the schema already provides. The example is helpful but not essential given the schema already says 'phrased as a short rule.'

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-resource pair, 'Append one constraint to a change,' and clarifies what a constraint is with an example ('no new runtime dependencies'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like task_add and change_doc by focusing on constraint semantics and their persistence through change_status.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the work needs a rule, limit, or requirement to be remembered and respected. It also explains why this tool is useful rather than just re-asking later. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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