constraint_surface

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds that the object sticks to the surface and moves with deformation. It does not mention side effects such as whether an existing constraint is replaced or whether the operation is reversible, but the annotation covers the destructive nature.

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 compact, with two short bilingual sentences that front-load the core purpose and behavior. There is no redundant filler or unnecessary detail.

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 simple constraint-adding tool, the description covers the essential behavior and target type. It does not explain return values or removal, but those are not essential given the absence of an output schema and the clear sibling toolset for constraint management.

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 u/v, target, and objects already documented in the schema. The description adds only the surface behavior context and does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema already offers.

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 ('Add') and resource ('Surface constraint') and clarifies the exact behavior: the object sticks to the target's surface and follows deformation. This clearly differentiates it from sibling constraint tools like constraint_position or constraint_path.

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 context is implied: use this when an object should attach to and deform with a target surface. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternative constraint tools such as constraint_link or constraint_path.

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