remove_constraint

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

The description implies a destructive operation (removal) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether the constraint is permanently deleted or if it affects other objects. No annotations are present to compensate for this lack of transparency.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and directly states the core function, though it sacrifices completeness.

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?

With two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. It omits context about which objects support constraints, the scope of removal, and error handling.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no detail beyond parameter names. The parameters 'name' and 'constraint_name' are not explained (e.g., what object does 'name' refer to? what format for 'constraint_name'?). The description fails to provide necessary semantics.

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 'remove', the resource 'constraint', and the qualification 'by constraint name', making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'add_constraint' or 'modifier_remove'.

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 such as 'armature_add_constraint' or 'remove_modifier'. The description does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or complementary tools.

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