constraint_orientation

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

The description discloses the primary behavioral effect: the object will match the target's rotation. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation aspect is covered. However, the description does not add context beyond the annotation, such as whether the constraint replaces existing orientation constraints or how weight affects blending. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 two concise sentences (Chinese and English mirror), front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and effect. It doesn't mention selection fallback or weight implications, but these are in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 each parameter (target, weight, objects) already described. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. It implies the target is the rotation reference, but the schema already states that. No compensation is needed.

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 tool adds an Orientation constraint so the object matches the target's rotation. It uses a specific verb (add) and resource (Orientation constraint) and conveys the core behavior. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling constraint tools, but the name and description are unambiguous enough to distinguish it.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like constraint_look_at, constraint_position, or constraint_path. There is no mention of scenarios where this constraint is appropriate or inappropriate, nor any prerequisites.

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