blender_constraint_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing that this is a mutating operation; it clearly says 'Add a constraint,' which is transparent and not misleading. It does not disclose whether existing constraints are preserved, what happens when targets are missing, or what is returned, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and resource, the second lists supported types and the key selection rule. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

The descitionate is reasonably complete for a lean tool description given that every parameter has a schema description, but it does not explain how to structure the nested settings object for different constraint types, what armature_name is required for bone constraints, or what the tool returns on success/failure. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, those gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to repeat schema docs. It adds some value by clarifying the bone_name vs object_name selection and mentioning type-specific settings, but it doesn't meaningfully elaborate on the settings keys, target relationships, or armature_name necessity beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific action ('Add a constraint') with a clear resource ('to a bone or object') and enumerates the supported constraint families. This distinguishes it from siblings like blender_constraint_preset and modifier tools even without opening the schema.

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?

It gives useful context by saying to specify bone_name for bone constraints and object_name for object constraints, then points to target and type-specific settings. However, it does not not mention when to prefer alternatives such as blender_constraint_preset, nor does it explain the armature_name requirement for bone constraints or exclude the case where both bone_name and object_name are provided.

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