rig-constraint_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action itself, such as what happens if the constraint does not exist, whether it requires the armature to be in pose mode, or any side effects like undo behavior. The description is very minimal and lacks transparency about potential errors or prerequisites.

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 sentence, extremely concise and to the point. It conveys the essential action without any fluff. For a simple tool with 3 parameters, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is insufficient. A removal operation on a bone constraint should include context like prerequisites (armature must be pose mode), what constitutes a valid constraint name, and what happens on success/failure. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their titles. The schema provides titles like 'Pose bone to edit' and 'Constraint name to remove', but the description adds no additional meaning about the types, formats, or relationships between parameters. For a 3-parameter tool with 0% coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving the agent to infer that 'name' is the constraint name and 'bone' is the pose 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 pose bone constraint' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (named pose bone constraint), which is adequate. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'constraints-remove' which likely does a similar operation on constraints, but for objects modifiers. The description is clear enough but lacks explicit statement of scope (e.g., on armature's pose bone).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rig-constraints', 'rig-constraint_add', or 'constraints-remove'. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or when to use a different tool. For example, it does not mention that this is for pose bone constraints while 'constraints-remove' may be for object constraints.

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