BlenderMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Returns a message indicating success or failure,' which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects on the object, or error conditions beyond failure messages, leaving significant 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear parameter list and return statement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, dependencies, or integration with sibling tools, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 adds meaningful semantics: object_name is 'Name of the object to apply the texture to,' and texture_id is 'ID of the Polyhaven texture to apply (must be downloaded first).' This clarifies purpose and prerequisites beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., string patterns) or examples.

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 ('Apply') and target ('a previously downloaded Polyhaven texture to an object'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like download_polyhaven_asset or search_polyhaven_assets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like import_generated_asset or execute_blender_code that might also affect objects, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage by mentioning the texture must be 'downloaded first' (referencing download_polyhaven_asset), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_blender_code for texture application or get_object_info for checking object details. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided.

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