rig-constraint_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a pose bone constraint' reveals only the basic action, not side effects, safety considerations, requirements, or impact on existing constraints. It provides no information beyond the purpose itself.

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 extremely short (five words), which might seem concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with seven parameters and three required fields. While there is no waste, it also provides no substantive detail—this is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, 3 required), missing annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, side effects, target/subtarget requirements, or any behavioral context, making it insufficient for reliable agent 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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation, but it mentions no parameters at all. The schema titles do provide some meaning (e.g., 'Optional constraint name'), but the description adds nothing to clarify the seven parameters or their relationships.

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 the action ('Add') and the resource ('pose bone constraint'), which is specific and unambiguous for Blender context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'constraints-add' (likely object constraints) and 'rig-constraint_remove' by identifying the pose-bone scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'constraints-add' or 'rig-constraint_remove'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., armature selection, pose mode) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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