add_bone_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 only states 'add a constraint', but does not mention side effects (e.g., modifying the armature), requirements (e.g., being in pose mode, armature existing), error conditions, or return behavior. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral information.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, which is desirable. However, it is so terse that it omits essential context. It is not poorly structured, but it lacks the detail that would make it genuinely helpful.

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 four parameters including a nested extra_params object, and no annotations or parameter documentation. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not satisfy the need for usage context (e.g., required pose mode, constraint types available). The description is far too minimal for a tool that adds a constraint to a bone, leaving the agent to guess at crucial details.

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%, meaning the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (armature_name, bone_name, constraint_type, extra_params). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail; it adds nothing about what constraint types are valid, what extra_params contains, or how names should be formatted. The agent must infer everything from the parameter names alone.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the target resource ('a pose bone'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'add_constraint' (likely for objects). However, it doesn't specify the type of constraint or the required armature context, so while the core purpose is clear, it lacks specificity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_constraint' or 'set_constraint_param'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., selection state, pose mode) or typical use cases. The description gives no context for choosing this tool over similar ones.

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