BlenderMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as an import operation with a success/failure return ('Return if the asset has been imported successfully'), but lacks details on error conditions, permissions needed, or what 'imported' entails (e.g., file location, scene integration). This is adequate 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear parameter list and usage rules. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters).

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a fair job: it covers purpose, parameters, and usage guidelines. However, as a mutation tool ('Import'), it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or return format beyond success indication, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'name' as the object name in scene, and 'task_uuid' and 'request_id' as IDs from specific generation steps with mode-based usage rules. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't specify formats or constraints for the parameters.

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 action ('Import') and resource ('asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin after the generation task is completed'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_polyhaven_asset' or 'download_sketchfab_model' which also import assets but from different sources.

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 explicit usage guidance: it specifies when to use this tool ('after the generation task is completed') and includes critical conditional logic ('Only give one of {task_uuid, request_id} based on the Hyper3D Rodin Mode!'), which helps the agent choose correctly between parameters and avoid misuse.

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