constraint_remove

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description goes further by specifying exactly what is lost: animation produced by the constraint, and that the controller resets to Bezier. This gives an agent important context for deciding whether the tool is safe to invoke in a given workflow.

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 short bilingual sentences front-load the main behavior and place the data-loss warning immediately after. There is no filler or irrelevant detail, and every sentence contributes meaning.

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 two-optional-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the primary behavior and the destructive side effect clearly. It does not state a return value, but no output schema exists and the tool's mutation semantics make that a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults (objects = current selection, property = position). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific action (remove constraint), a target (a property on objects), and the resulting state (reset to default Bezier controller), which is more than restating the tool name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling constraint creation/inspection tools like constraint_link and constraint_list.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool over alternatives, but the action description makes the intended use apparent for removing an existing constraint. It does not mention inspecting constraints first with constraint_list or other related tools, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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