constraint_create

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. It only states that the tool creates something, implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or failure behavior. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description adds no transparency beyond the basic create action.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and every word earns its place. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks guidance on parameter usage, return values, when to use this tool over siblings, and behavioral expectations. An agent would be unable to correctly construct a call without additional external knowledge. The description is far too minimal for the tool's complexity.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. However, the description does not mention any parameters, their meanings, or relationships. The schema itself has no descriptions, leaving the agent to guess from property names like 'statement', 'constraint', 'severity', etc., which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('constraint memory') with a specific purpose ('implementation restrictions'), which distinguishes it from generic memory creation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools like invariant_create or assumption_create, leaving some ambiguity about what makes a 'constraint' unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria. An agent must infer from the name and the phrase 'implementation restrictions' when this tool is appropriate, which is insufficient for a set of many similar memory-creation tools.

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