add_constraints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosure. It implies that the operation changes project state ('Add'), but it does not say whether the files must already exist, whether a new fileset is created or the fileset must already exist, what happens on a partial failure, or what the response is. For a write operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with no filler, and it presents the action first. Nothing is wasted. However, the brevity comes at the cost of all the missing information noted above.

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?

This is a write tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not state the project-state prerequisite or the relationship to load_board_xdc and add_sources. Therefore, it is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently without inspecting other tools.

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 100%: 'files' is documented as absolute paths to .xdc files, and 'fileset' is documented with a default of constrs_1. Because the schema already explains all parameter meaning, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra detail, such as validation or ordering rules.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Add XDC constraint files to the current project.' An agent can understand the action. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling tool load_board_xdc, which has a similar role (loading XDC files), or from add_sources; therefore, an agent facing similar tasks must guess.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as load_board_xdc or add_sources. It also does not state a prerequisite—for example, that a project must already be open—or explain when adding constraints to a fileset is appropriate. The meaning must be inferred.

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