Hello3DMCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation 'preserves current azimuth and elevation angles,' which is useful behavioral context about what gets maintained during the update. However, it doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether the change is immediate/visible, or what happens if invalid distance values are provided. The description adds some value 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 perfectly concise: two clear sentences that each earn their place. The first states the core action, the second adds important behavioral context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and some behavioral context but lacks important details. It doesn't explain what units 'distance' uses, what range is valid beyond 'positive number,' what happens to the visual scene, or what confirmation/response to expect. For a tool that modifies 3D lighting, more context about the visual effect would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the 'distance' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With 0 parameters needing extra explanation (only 1 parameter with complete schema coverage), the baseline is 4. The description doesn't detract from parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set the distance of the fill light from the model origin.' This is a specific verb ('Set') + resource ('distance of the fill light') combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_key_light_distance' or 'set_fill_light_position_spherical' beyond the 'fill light' scope.

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 implied usage context: 'Preserves current azimuth and elevation angles' suggests this tool should be used when you want to change only distance while maintaining other spherical coordinates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'set_fill_light_position_spherical' (which sets all coordinates) or 'walk_fill_light_in/out' (which might adjust distance incrementally).

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