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 mentions rotation 'in an arc around the center of the model', which adds some behavioral context about the motion path. However, it lacks details on effects (e.g., lighting changes), permissions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 key light rightward') and adds necessary context ('in an arc around the center of the model') without any 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's complexity (a mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the action but misses behavioral details like effects or return values, making it incomplete for full understanding.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it implies the tool operates without user-specified inputs, aligning with the schema.

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'), target ('key light'), direction ('rightward'), and motion type ('in an arc around the center of the model'), which is specific and distinguishes it from other lighting tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'swing_key_light_left' or 'rotate_key_light_clockwise', which would require a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swing_key_light_left', 'rotate_key_light_clockwise', or other lighting adjustment tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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