constrain_insert

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the compound effect (aligns axes AND seats faces) and the offset units, but says nothing about whether an existing constraint is replaced, what errors occur on invalid edges, or whether the operation is transactional.

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 core behavior is stated in the first sentence before the arg list, and every subsequent line maps to a distinct parameter with 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the parameter documentation is thorough for a 7-param tool. The remaining gap is the lack of any failure-mode or precondition disclosure for a mutation call with no annotations.

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 only 14% (just 'instance'), and the description compensates well: it explains occurrence/edge pairs, cross-references list_component_edges for edge indices, gives offset units (mm) and the semantics of axes_opposed for the normal bolt case. Only 'instance' semantics and the occurrence index basis are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (insert constraint between two circular edges) plus the concrete physical case it models (bolt into hole). The 'circular edges' scope implicitly separates it from constrain_faces and generic constrain, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('a bolt into a hole in one call') and points the agent at list_component_edges to obtain valid edge indices. No explicit when-not-use guidance or named alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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