constraint_link

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

The annotations already signal mutating/destructive behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds the intended operational effect—attaching an object to a target at a time—but does not disclose details like whether existing constraints are replaced, whether keyframes are created, or how the scene changes beyond the attachment.

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 front-loaded with the action and purpose. It is bilingual, which explains the repetition, though there is a slight inconsistency between Chinese '指定时间' (specified time) and English 'current time', causing minor ambiguity about frame handling.

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?

Combined with the fully described schema and annotations, the description gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool: required target, optional frame/objects, and a clear animation use case. It does not explain return behavior, but there is no output schema and the mutation semantics are covered by annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents target, frame, and objects. The description only repeats the target/frame concept without adding new parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but adds little beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Link constraint, attaching the object to target at the current time'. It clearly distinguishes this from other constraint siblings like constraint_position or constraint_path by naming the Link constraint type and its purpose in pick-up/hand-off animations.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: this is the key for pick-up/hand-off animations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the constraint_* sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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