spine_add_transform_constraint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explains what properties are copied, how mix and offsets work, local vs world transforms, additive vs relative behavior, version-specific clamp and mapping behavior, and default update order. It still omits mutation side effects such as required existing bones/source or error behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and then uses a clear Args list for parameter details. Despite covering many parameters, every section is useful and there is no filler.

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?

For a complex 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is substantially complete about behavior and file-format differences. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The main remaining gap is that required project and name parameters are not described.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It gives useful semantics for properties, mix, offsets, local, additive, clamp, mapping, and order, and implicitly explains bones/source. However, required parameters project and name are not explained, leaving important gaps in a high-parameter tool.

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 verb and resource: adding a transform constraint. It explains the mechanism clearly, with examples such as a cape following the torso and wheels sharing rotation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling constraint tools like IK, path, or physics, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The examples imply appropriate use cases and mention animating with timeline "transform". However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this constraint over alternative constraint types, nor when not to use it. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully specified.

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