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. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Set'), it preserves current distance, and it uses camera-centric coordinates. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the light is already at the specified position.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies constraints, and subsequent sentences provide essential parameter semantics with clear examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary 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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of the coordinate system and parameter usage. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns or potential error conditions, which would be helpful given the mutation nature and lack of output schema.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It provides concrete examples of direction names ('north', 'northwest', 'southeast'), clarifies the coordinate system with cardinal directions, and explains the mapping between direction names and degrees (e.g., 'north' = 0°, 'east' = 90°). This greatly enhances understanding of the azimuth parameter.

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 key light position') and resource ('key light'), using precise terminology ('camera-centric spherical coordinates'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_key_light_distance' by specifying it only changes azimuth and elevation while preserving distance, and from 'set_fill_light_position_spherical' by targeting the key light.

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 for when to use this tool ('only changes azimuth and elevation' while preserving distance), which implicitly distinguishes it from distance-setting tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'set_key_light_distance' or 'set_fill_light_position_spherical'.

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