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 tool mutates state (by 'Set') and preserves specific angles, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place by specifying the tool's purpose and behavioral constraint without any wasted text.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the action and a key behavioral trait (angle preservation), but lacks details on effects, errors, or return values, which could hinder agent usage.

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%, with the parameter 'distance' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 distance'), identifies the target resource ('key light from the model origin'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying what it preserves ('Preserves current azimuth and elevation angles'), unlike other tools that might change those angles.

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 by stating it preserves current azimuth and elevation angles, implying this tool is for distance-only adjustments. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like 'set_key_light_position_spherical' (which might change all coordinates) or 'walk_key_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.