constraints-remove

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (remove) without mentioning potential side effects, reversibility, error handling, or the distinction between OBJECT and BONE owners. This is minimal and does not clarify what happens in different scenarios.

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 with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple removal tool.

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 simple tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use 'bone' versus 'object' (or how owner affects behavior), what happens if the constraint does not exist, or any prerequisites. With no output schema and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to execute correctly.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters: object, name, owner, or bone. Schema description coverage is 0%, and while titles exist (e.g., 'Pose bone name when owner is BONE'), the description adds no clarity. The term 'named' hints at the 'name' parameter but does not describe how to use it or the role of owner/bone.

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 'Remove a named object or pose-bone constraint' clearly states the verb (remove) and the resource (constraint) with specific scope (object or pose-bone). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like constraints-add, constraints-list, and constraints-set, which have different actions.

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 usage for both object and bone constraints, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as constraints-set (for modifications) or rig-constraint_remove (which may be another removal path). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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