add_geometric_constraint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation and parameter values, omitting side effects, failure modes, permission requirements, or reversibility—important for a mutation 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately providing essential parameter details without redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers only two of three parameters, lacks behavioral context, and gives no indication of return values or effects, making it inadequate 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?

The schema provides 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'kind' enum and the 'entities' reference format, but the 'sketch' parameter is left unexplained, leaving partial compensation.

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 'Apply a geometric constraint' and enumerates allowed kinds and entity reference formats, which unambiguously identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from similar tools like add_dimension.

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 implies use for adding geometric constraints but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., add_dimension) or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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