rig.constraint_add

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the annotation-free schema. It does not disclose whether the constraint is added to a stack, overwrites existing constraints, what side effects occur, or any permissions/limitations.

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?

While the description is short, it sacrifices useful detail. It is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters, making it insufficiently helpful.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain parameter relationships, allowed values for 'type', or how the tool integrates with the armature system.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to any of the 7 parameters. The one-line description does not explain fields like 'bone', 'type', 'target', etc., forcing the agent to infer from parameter titles alone.

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 'Add a pose bone constraint' clearly states the action and target resource, and the 'pose bone' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'constraints.add' which may apply to other contexts. However, the distinction is not explicit.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'constraints.add' or 'rig.constraint_remove', nor any prerequisites or context for invocation.

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