BlenderMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool generates assets with built-in materials, normalizes size (requiring potential rescaling), and imports into Blender. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'success or failure' entails. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized with four sentences and a parameters section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details and parameter explanations. Some redundancy exists (e.g., '3D asset' repeated), but overall it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides adequate basics: purpose, key behaviors, and parameter meanings. However, for a tool that generates and imports 3D assets (a complex mutation), it lacks details on output format, error handling, prerequisites, or integration with other tools like 'get_hyper3d_status'. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'text_prompt' is a short English description of the desired model and 'bbox_condition' (optional) controls length/width/height ratio as a list of 3 floats. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format examples or constraints more precisely.

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 specific action ('Generate 3D asset using Hyper3D'), resource ('3D asset'), and scope ('by giving description of the desired asset, and import the asset into Blender'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_hyper3d_model_via_images' by specifying text-based generation and from 'import_generated_asset' by combining generation with import.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for generating 3D assets from text descriptions and importing them into Blender. It implicitly distinguishes from image-based generation via sibling 'generate_hyper3d_model_via_images', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like downloading existing models from Polyhaven or Sketchfab.

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