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 movement action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a relative or absolute movement, the step size, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the light reaches limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. Every element (verb, resource, direction, spatial reference) earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple movement tool.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context about what to expect from the operation. While it clearly states what the tool does, it doesn't address important aspects like response format, error conditions, or interaction with other lighting tools, leaving gaps for 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's already covered, maintaining a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('Move'), target resource ('key light'), direction ('farther from the center'), and spatial reference ('along the axis from the model origin'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'walk_key_light_in' by specifying outward movement, but doesn't fully differentiate from other light positioning tools like 'set_key_light_distance' or 'move_key_light_toward_direction'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_key_light_distance' or 'move_key_light_toward_direction'. The description implies it's for incremental outward movement along a specific axis, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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