add_constraint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It simply says 'Add an object constraint' which implies a mutation but does not state permissions, side effects, reversibility, or response format. The reference to CONSTRAINT_TYPES is ambiguous and does not clarify tool behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 extremely short (two sentences), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the main action but fails to provide any structure for parameters or usage. For a tool with five parameters, this is not appropriately sized; conciseness is undermined by lack of essential detail.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, no schema descriptions, no annotations) and the existence of related tools like list_constraints and remove_constraint, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about constraint types, parameter semantics, and any behavioral caveats. The output schema exists but is not described, so agents cannot know what to expect, further limiting completeness.

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 must explain parameters. The description does not mention any of the five parameters (object_name, type, name, target, extra_params) or their meanings. It only alludes to constraint types but does not specify how to use them in the parameters. This is a critical gap that leaves the agent unable to form correct arguments.

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 'Add an object constraint,' which is a specific verb (add) and resource (object constraint). It clearly indicates the operation, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like add_bone_constraint or set_constraint_param. However, the name and action are sufficiently distinct to convey the primary purpose.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'See CONSTRAINT_TYPES,' which is a reference to a list but does not explain when this tool is appropriate. No mention of when not to use it or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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