Hello3DMCP Server

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 effectively describes the mutation behavior ('Set') and the coordinate-preserving constraint, but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens to other light properties. It provides useful context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 structured and concise: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds critical constraint information, and subsequent sentences efficiently explain the coordinate system with clear definitions and practical examples. Every sentence earns its place with 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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent contextual information about the coordinate system, parameter semantics, and behavioral constraints. The only minor gap is the lack of information about what the tool returns or potential error conditions.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing detailed semantic context for both parameters: it explains the coordinate system (camera-centric), defines azimuth cardinal directions with examples, lists all available direction names, and clarifies that elevation is vertical angle. This goes well beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 ('Set the fill light position') with the precise method ('using camera-centric spherical coordinates'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_fill_light_distance' or 'move_fill_light_toward_direction' which use different positioning approaches. It explicitly identifies the resource (fill light) and coordinate system.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by specifying 'Preserves current distance - only changes azimuth and elevation,' which helps differentiate it from tools that adjust distance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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