constraint_path

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds the behavioral effect (object follows a spline) but does not disclose details such as whether existing constraints are preserved, whether the object's transform is overridden, or what happens if the path is invalid. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and avoids filler. The bilingual duplication is redundant but not wasteful, and each sentence contributes purpose information or parameter clarification.

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 simple tool complexity, fully documented schema, and presence of annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does and highlights the animatable parameter. It could be more complete by noting when to choose this over other constraint types, but that gap is minor for a straightforward constraint operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining that percent is the animatable travel percentage you can drive in animation, which the schema only describes as an 'initial travel percentage.' This extra semantic context helps the agent know percent can be keyframed.

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 Path constraint' that makes an object follow a spline. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling constraint tools like constraint_look_at or constraint_position by specifying the spline-following behavior.

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 intended use is implied: use when you want an object to move along a spline. However, the description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference alternative constraint tools, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and purpose.

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