Create a Constraint with an OpaqueExpression on a parent element in a SysML model, using specified name, language, expression, and subject IDs.
Create a Constraint with an OpaqueExpression body on parent_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| parent_id | Yes | ||
| expression | Yes | ||
| subject_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create', implying a mutation, but gives no details about side effects, required permissions, error handling, or reversibility. It does not mention what happens if the parent_id is invalid or if the constraint already exists.
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 sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks any structure or grouping of information and does not earn its brevity because it omits critical context for a tool with 5 parameters.
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?
The tool is complex with 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. The description covers none of the parameter meanings, output expectations, or edge cases. Even the output schema is present but not referenced, leaving the agent without guidance on what the tool returns or how to handle errors.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for its 5 parameters, and the description does not compensate. It mentions parent_id and 'OpaqueExpression' but never explicitly explains the 'expression' parameter, nor 'name', 'language', or 'subject_ids'. An agent cannot determine what values to provide beyond the schema's field names.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'Constraint' with an 'OpaqueExpression body', and specifies it attaches to a parent_id. This is specific and distinct from many generic create_* tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from create_constraint_block or create_constraint_property.
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 create_constraint_block or create_constraint_property. The description implies a parent context but does not state when this is the right choice or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.