add_parallel_constraint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It gives zero behavioral information: does it modify the sketch? Is it destructive? What are side effects? The description is essentially just the tool's name, offering no insights into its 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 extremely short but at the expense of completeness. It is under-specification rather than conciseness. A truly concise description would convey essential meaning in few words; this conveys nothing useful.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, usage, return values, or constraints. For a constraint addition tool, the agent needs to know that it expects a sketch and two edge indices.

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% with basic descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Body name', 'First geometry index'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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_parallel_constraint', which is a tautology. It restates the name without specifying what the tool does, e.g., 'Adds a parallel constraint between two edges in a sketch'. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like add_perpendicular_constraint or add_tangent_constraint, which have similar patterns.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives. In context of sibling tools like add_coincident_constraint and add_horizontal_constraint, the description should clarify that this tool is for making two lines parallel, but it does not.

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