set_constraint_property

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

The only behavioral annotation is idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, error conditions, or requirements (e.g., constraint must already exist). Listing common properties is more about parameter semantics than behavior.

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 very concise: two short phrases with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then provides examples. However, it may be too sparse for the tool's complexity, but that's a completeness issue rather than conciseness.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema that doesn't need explanation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify how to reference the constraint (by name?), the role of the optional bone parameter, or what typical valid values look like. The provided examples are a start but not complete.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It provides common values for 'property', which is helpful, but gives no guidance for 'object', 'constraint', 'bone', or 'value', leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 ('Set a constraint property') with a specific resource, and provides common property examples (target, subtarget, influence, axis). While it doesn't explicitly mention overlapping sibling tools like set_constraint_influence, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The examples of common properties imply when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as set_constraint_influence, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied.

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