rig.constraint_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits, but it only states the removal action. It omits details like whether the operation can fail (e.g., missing constraint), required mode (e.g., Pose Mode), or side effects.

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 concise at 5 words, but it sacrifices informative content. A slightly longer description with parameter context or usage notes would be more helpful while still being concise.

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 has 3 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what constitutes a valid constraint name, how to specify the armature, or what happens if the constraint doesn't exist.

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 provides no additional meaning beyond the input schema parameters (bone, name, armature). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should explain each parameter's role but does not, leaving the agent with only the parameter titles.

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 specifies the action (remove) and the resource (a named pose bone constraint). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'rig.constraint_add' and 'rig.constraints'.

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 versus alternatives such as 'rig.constraints' (for listing) or 'rig.constraint_add'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or when removal is appropriate.

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