constraint_position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature of the operation is known. The description adds a useful behavioral detail—multi-target weighted blending—but it does not disclose side effects on existing transforms, the constraint stack, or reversibility beyond what 'Add' implies.

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?

Two compact parallel sentences in Chinese and English, with the action front-loaded and no filler. The bilingual duplication is intentional and does not add meaningful bloat.

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?

The core invocation is clear: a required target, optional weight, and optional object list covered by both description and schema. However, the stated multi-target weighted blending is not fully supported by the schema's single 'target' string and single 'weight' number, leaving a gap that an agent must resolve before calling the tool 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%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that 'target' is followed and 'weight' controls blending, but it does not clarify how multiple targets are encoded or whether the single 'weight' applies to all targets, leaving the multi-target capability ambiguous.

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 names a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('Position constraint'), and the outcome ('follows target's position'), with an optional multi-target weighted blend. It clearly identifies this as the position variant among the constraint_* sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: use this when an object should follow a target's position, possibly with weighted multi-target blending. The description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as constraint_orientation, constraint_path, or constraint_link, which would help route among the constraint siblings.

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