add_coincident_constraint

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits. There is no mention of side effects (e.g., sketch modification), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent without critical context for a geometric constraint tool.

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 but is under-specified. It does not convey necessary information about the tool's action, making it wasteful rather than concise. Effective conciseness requires substance.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, success conditions, or how the constraint is applied, leaving the agent without essential behavioral context.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema already provides basic parameter info, but the description fails to clarify how parameters relate to the constraint operation.

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 is 'FreeCAD tool: add_coincident_constraint', which essentially restates the name without specifying what the tool does (e.g., constraining two points or edges to coincide). It does not differentiate from sibling constraint tools like add_horizontal_constraint or add_tangent_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description lacks context such as required preconditions (e.g., an active sketch) or scenarios where this constraint is appropriate.

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