BlenderMCP

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 that the texture 'must be downloaded first' (a prerequisite) and that it 'Returns a message indicating success or failure' (basic outcome). However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing textures), error conditions (e.g., invalid object_name), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear parameter list and return statement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters, and return type. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error handling) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema (e.g., what the success/failure message contains). It's adequate but has clear gaps for safe invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'object_name' is 'Name of the object to apply the texture to' and 'texture_id' is 'ID of the Polyhaven texture to apply (must be downloaded first)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, clarifying purpose and constraints. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., string patterns) or examples.

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 ('Apply') and target ('a previously downloaded Polyhaven texture to an object'), specifying both the resource (texture) and target (object). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_polyhaven_asset' by focusing on application rather than acquisition. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other texture-related tools that might exist in broader contexts.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'must be downloaded first' indicates a prerequisite, and the mention of 'Polyhaven texture' suggests it's specific to that source. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'download_polyhaven_asset' (which acquires textures) and 'get_object_info' (which inspects objects). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for similar operations.

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