fem_add_constraint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It states that refs are resolved against the live shape and survive geometry edits, which is useful. However, it omits critical traits: is the operation destructive? Does it require an existing analysis? Are there permission or rate limits? What is the response? For a mutation tool with 20 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then organized by kind with clear bullet-like formatting. It is efficient and structured, though not maximally concise (e.g., '(Slice 1)' is cryptic and could be omitted). Every sentence earns its place in explaining parameter semantics.

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 complexity (20 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It covers required parameters for each kind but omits optional parameters like name, reversed, and the free flags. It also lacks behavioral context like return value or side effects. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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. It explains what kind values are valid and lists required parameters for each kind (force, pressure, displacement, temperature, heatflux, etc.), which adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not cover all 20 parameters (e.g., name, reversed, x_free/y_free/z_free are only partially mentioned). It covers the most critical ones but leaves gaps, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Add a constraint by face/edge tag'. It distinguishes the mechanism (refs resolved against live shape) but does not differentiate from siblings like fem_set_material or contact_setup beyond the general FEM family context. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., fem_new_analysis, fem_set_material, contact_setup). The description implies it's for adding constraints in a FEM analysis but offers no when/when-not or alternative conditions. No usage context provided.

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