Hello3DMCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets rotation (implying a mutation/write operation) but doesn't mention permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it overrides previous rotations), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Set the model rotation') and efficiently explains key details (Euler angles, degrees, XYZ order, axis mappings). Every word contributes essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with three required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and coordinate system adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) and output information, which are critical for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 fully documents the three parameters (x, y, z) with their types and meanings. The description adds value by explaining the Euler angle convention (XYZ order), mapping axes to human-readable terms (pitch, yaw, roll), and clarifying units (degrees), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic 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 model rotation') and resource ('model'), using precise terminology ('Euler angles in degrees, XYZ order'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_model_rotation' (read vs. write), 'nudge_model_pitch_down/up' (incremental vs. absolute), and 'rotate_model_clockwise/counterclockwise' (relative vs. absolute orientation).

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 by specifying the coordinate system (Euler angles, XYZ order) and units (degrees), which suggests when to use this tool for absolute rotation setting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose alternatives like 'nudge_model_pitch_down/up' for incremental adjustments or 'rotate_model_clockwise/counterclockwise' for relative rotations, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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