snap_cursor_to_selected

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether the operation is destructive, read-only, or requires specific context (e.g., a selection must exist). The agent gets no behavioral hints at all.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It consists of a single line that repeats the tool name. No useful information is front-loaded because there is none.

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?

The tool is part of a large library with many cursor-related commands (snap_selected_to_cursor, get_3d_cursor, set_3d_cursor). Even with no parameters and an output schema, the description must clarify the tool's purpose and any prerequisites (e.g., a selection). It provides none, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly or interpret results.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there is nothing to document). Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description adds no meaning about what the cursor snaps to or how it uses the selection. It fails to compensate for the absence of schema detail the way a good description could.

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 is purely a restatement of the tool name with a prefix ('Blender Studio Pro MCP: snap_cursor_to_selected'). It does not state what action the tool performs or what resource it affects. This is a tautology, offering no clarification beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like snap_selected_to_cursor and set_3d_cursor exist, but no conditions or exclusions are mentioned. An agent has no idea how to choose between them.

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