Hello3DMCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that the tool 'automatically queries fresh state before performing the rotation to ensure accuracy', which is a non-obvious implementation detail that affects behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if rotation exceeds bounds.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second explains the automatic state querying. No wasted words.

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 does well: it clearly states what the tool does, adds behavioral context about state querying, and the schema fully documents the parameter. However, it doesn't describe what happens after rotation (e.g., success confirmation, error handling) which would be helpful given the mutation nature.

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% (the 'degrees' parameter is fully documented in the schema with type, constraints, and default). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('rotate the model clockwise around Y axis'), specifies the resource ('model'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the axis (Y/yaw) and relative nature ('relative to current rotation'). This is more specific than just the name/title.

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 context by stating it rotates 'relative to current rotation' and mentions automatic state querying for accuracy, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. alternatives like 'rotate_model_counterclockwise' or 'set_model_rotation'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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