add_constraint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about side effects, whether the constraint is added to the specified object or the active object, whether it replaces existing constraints, or what the output/results are. The phrase 'Add a constraint' essentially restates the tool name, and the type list conveys no behavioral traits.

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 highly concise: a single sentence followed by a compact list of constraint types. There is no redundant or filler content, and the action word 'Add' is front-loaded. The list is necessary and efficiently formatted.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and existing output schema, the description is radically incomplete. It does not explain what 'object' refers to, when 'bone' should be used, what 'name' does, or what the output will be. It also does not differentiate from add_bone_constraint. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided description alone.

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 does provide the allowed values for the 'type' parameter, which is valuable since the schema has no enums. However, the required 'object' parameter and the optional 'bone' and 'name' parameters are left completely unexplained. The description addresses only one of four parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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 the action clearly: 'Add a constraint.' It further specifies the resource by listing all supported constraint types (COPY_LOCATION through CLAMP_TO), which gives an agent concrete grounding. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling add_bone_constraint, leaving ambiguity about whether this is strictly for object 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_constraint_property, remove_constraint, or add_bone_constraint. The description lists types but does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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