Hello3DMCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Change' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the change is persistent, what happens if invalid colors are provided, or what the expected response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, error conditions, and relationship to similar tools. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'color' well-documented in the schema including format examples and a comprehensive list of allowed values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Change') and target ('color of the 3D model in the scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'change_background_color' or 'set_fill_light_color', which would be needed for 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple color-related tools in the sibling list (change_background_color, set_fill_light_color, set_key_light_color, get_model_color), there's no indication of which tool applies to which specific scenario or object.

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