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 describes the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the light reaches a limit. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('rotate the fill light downward') and adds necessary detail ('in an arc around the center of the model'). There's zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like effects, limits, or error conditions, which reduces completeness for safe agent use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, but that's unnecessary here. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.

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 action ('rotate'), the target ('fill light'), the direction ('downward'), and the motion type ('in an arc around the center of the model'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'swing_fill_light_up' by specifying direction and from 'nudge_fill_light_elevation_down' by specifying arc motion versus nudge.

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 when needing to rotate the fill light downward in an arc, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'nudge_fill_light_elevation_down' or 'move_fill_light_toward_direction'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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