Hello3DMCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on invocation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 essential action. Every word earns its place: 'Rotate' (action), 'fill light' (target), 'rightward' (direction), 'in an arc' (motion type), 'around the center of the model' (reference point). Zero waste.

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 but lacks behavioral context for a mutation operation. It doesn't explain what 'rightward' means relative to the model or viewer perspective, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that likely changes scene state, more context would be helpful.

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 parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

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 ('rightward'), and the motion path ('in an arc around the center of the model'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'swing_fill_light_left' by specifying direction, and from 'rotate_fill_light_clockwise' by implying a swinging arc motion rather than pure rotation.

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 adjust fill light position rightward in an arc, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'swing_fill_light_left' or 'move_fill_light_toward_direction'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection criteria.

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