add_constraint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the allowed types but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it replaces existing constraints), how the `object` and `bone` parameters interact, or whether any constraints are added to the active object by default. The behavior remains opaque.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear list of types. It is not bloated, but it omits critical context, so it earns a slight penalty for being too terse rather than genuinely concise.

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 mutation nature (add), four parameters with zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides no context about object vs. bone constraints, parameter semantics, or how this relates to sibling constraint tools. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value explanation, but the input side remains poorly documented.

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 does not explain any parameters: `object`, `type`, `bone`, or `name`. The type list partially informs the `type` parameter, but the meaning of `bone` (e.g., target bone for IK) and the optional `name` are left entirely unexplained.

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 action ('Add a constraint') and provides an explicit list of constraint types, which adds clarity. However, it does not specify that this tool is for object constraints specifically, leaving potential ambiguity with the sibling tool `add_bone_constraint`.

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 `add_bone_constraint`, `set_constraint_property`, or `remove_constraint`. The description does not mention prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions.

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