BlenderMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates and imports assets, mentions built-in materials and normalized size, and indicates success/failure returns. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether it's destructive, or how it interacts with Blender beyond import.

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 with the main purpose. It uses bullet points for parameters efficiently, but could be slightly more concise by integrating the mode dependency into a single sentence rather than repeating 'Required if' for each parameter.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context like error handling, Blender integration details, or what 'success or failure' entails. It's adequate for basic use but incomplete for a tool with multiple modes and external dependencies.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: input_image_paths for MAIN_SITE mode, input_image_urls for FAL_AI mode, and bbox_condition for controlling model dimensions. It clarifies the exclusive choice between paths and URLs and provides formatting rules (wrap in list, absolute paths).

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 tool generates a 3D asset using Hyper3D from input images and imports it into Blender, specifying it has built-in materials and normalized size. It distinguishes from sibling 'generate_hyper3d_model_via_text' by using images instead of text, and from 'import_generated_asset' by combining generation and import.

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 on when to use this tool (for generating 3D assets from images) and mentions re-scaling after generation. It distinguishes from the text-based sibling but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other 3D asset tools like download_polyhaven_asset or download_sketchfab_model.

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