constraint.add_object

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety hints. The description only mentions 'Risk: standard' and 'maturity: L3', which are operational metadata, not behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or any post-conditions.

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, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. While it is structured with risk and maturity labels, it provides no functional information, so it fails to earn its place as a useful 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 10 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, what inputs are needed, or what the output represents. It lacks any meaningful context for invocation.

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 only 40%, with only 'target' having a description. The tool description does not explain any of the 10 parameters, including required ones like 'bone', 'owner', or 'type'. It fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 restates the command name 'constraint.add_object' and provides risk/maturity metadata. It does not state what the tool does, such as adding an object constraint to a bone or object. This is a tautology, offering no functional clarity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_constraint_add_bone. The description mentions generic requirements but no context for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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