add_bone_constraint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It only says 'Add a constraint' without revealing details such as whether the constraint is appended to existing ones, whether it requires the bone to be in a certain mode, or what the returned output represents. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 and is easy to read, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It front-loads the action but omits critical parameter and usage details. It is appropriately short but not information-dense enough to earn a higher score.

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 tool has 4 parameters with zero schema-level descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that is not explained, the description is inadequate. It fails to cover what the returned data is or any constraints on the input values, making the tool hard to invoke correctly.

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 lists the 'type' values but does not explain the meaning of 'object', 'bone', or 'name'. The agent gets no help understanding what object/bone refer to or how the optional name behaves. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 tool adds a constraint to a pose bone and enumerates supported constraint types (IK, COPY_ROTATION, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from generic constraint tools like add_constraint, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_constraint or set_constraint_property. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an existing armature or pose mode. The description leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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