create_mpc_constraint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only 'Create an MPC constraint' and enumerates mpc_type values, but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, failure modes, or what happens to the model.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is minimal, but its brevity is appropriate; the main issue is omitted substance, not extra words.

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 tool has six parameters, four of which are required, and sits among many similar constraint-creation tools, yet the description provides no context about required inputs, model dependencies, or relationship to alternatives. An agent cannot reliably determine what control_point or surface_name refer to from this definition.

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%, yet the description documents only mpc_type choices. Required parameters such as control_point, surface_name, and name are left undefined, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'Create an MPC constraint.' It is clear what the tool does at a high level, though it uses 'MPC' without explaining the concept and does not distinguish itself from sibling constraint-creation tools such as create_tie or create_coupling_constraint.

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 given for when to use this tool versus the many related constraint tools. The description only lists mpc_type choices, leaving the agent to infer that an MPC is a distinct constraint type from the tool name alone.

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