create_rigid_body_constraint

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one behavioral detail—PIN constrains only translational DOFs—but does not explain what a rigid body constraint does overall, what prerequisites exist, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. It is under-specified relative to the six parameters, but structurally it wastes no 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?

Given six parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and the presence of closely related constraint tools, the description is not complete enough. It omits the meaning of required parameters like region_name and the role of ref_point_name, and provides no usage context for selecting this constraint type.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains only body_type values and ignores the required parameters name and region_name, as well as ref_point_name, model_name, and timeout. The tool cannot be invoked correctly based on this description.

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 clear action and resource: 'Create a rigid body constraint.' This is a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling constraint tools like create_coupling_constraint, create_mpc_constraint, or create_equation_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?

There is no guidance about when to use a rigid body constraint versus alternative constraint types. The body_type note explains a parameter but does not help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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