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 basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read or write operation (implied mutation), what the arc magnitude is, if it's reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 core action ('Rotate the key light leftward') and adds necessary context ('in an arc around the center of the model'). Every word contributes to understanding 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?

For a zero-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., incremental vs. absolute movement, visual feedback). Given the simplicity of the action, it's complete enough for basic use but could benefit from more context about effects.

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 mention parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when the description is adequate for the action.

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 ('the key light'), the direction ('leftward'), and the movement pattern ('in an arc around the center of the model'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'swing_key_light_right' by specifying direction, and from 'rotate_key_light_clockwise' by implying a different rotation axis or behavior.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swing_key_light_right', 'rotate_key_light_clockwise', or 'move_key_light_toward_direction'. It lacks context about lighting adjustments, prerequisites, or typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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