constraint.add_bone

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

The description adds only generic metadata ('Risk: standard; maturity: L3; Requirements...') rather than behavioral details about side effects, whether existing constraints are modified, or how the bone constraint is attached. Annotations already indicate this is not read-only or idempotent, so the description should supplement that but does not. No contradiction exists, but the behavioral burden is unmet.

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 text is short but under-specified; its sentences about risk, maturity, and request checks are generic and do not earn their place. There is no functional information that justifies the brevity. This is closer to a placeholder than a useful concise description.

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 16 parameters, required fields, and an output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It gives no indication of what the command accomplishes, which arguments are essential, what constraints can be added, or expected behavior. The agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool based on the provided text.

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?

The description mentions no parameters at all. With schema description coverage at only 38%, many important properties like bone, name, type, influence, subtarget, and targetObjectId remain unexplained in both the schema and description. The description does nothing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 only states 'PartMe Blender Harness command `constraint.add_bone`'—it restates the command name rather than explaining what the tool does. It provides no verb, resource, or outcome such as 'adds a constraint to the specified bone'. The name itself is suggestive, but the description does not clarify the operation or distinguish it from blender_constraint_add_object.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_constraint_add_object or blender_constraint_keyframe_influence. The mention of 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' is generic operational boilerplate, not usage direction. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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