snap_selected_to_cursor

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is silent on side effects, what gets modified, whether an offset affects placement, or any required selection state. It does not disclose the tool's behavior beyond the name itself.

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 brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single sentence could adequately explain the tool, but this description provides no useful information. It does not earn its placement; it is simply a wrapper around the tool name.

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 mutates object positions and has a parameter with unclear semantics, the description is completely inadequate. Without any explanation of the operation or the offset, an agent cannot safely invoke it. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter information.

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 schema has a single parameter 'offset' with no type or description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameter at all. Since the description adds nothing about what 'offset' meaningfully does, the parameter remains completely opaque.

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 exactly the tool name with a prefix 'Blender Studio Pro MCP:', providing zero semantic content beyond the name. It does not state what action is performed, on what objects, or what 'snap to cursor' means. This is a tautology – the description restates the tool name without adding any clarity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like snap_cursor_to_selected or set_3d_cursor. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would select this tool over siblings.

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