BlenderMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool applies textures to objects and returns a success/failure message, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or how it interacts with other tools (e.g., if it overwrites existing textures). This leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of parameters and a clear statement about returns. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, parameters, prerequisites, and return indication. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or side effects, which would be helpful for a mutation tool. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it does state the return is a message, which is adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It adds crucial meaning beyond the schema: it explains that object_name refers to '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 clarifies the purpose and constraints of each parameter, effectively documenting them where the schema does not.

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 specific action ('Apply a previously downloaded Polyhaven texture') and the target resource ('to an object'), distinguishing it from siblings like download_polyhaven_asset (which acquires textures) or get_object_info (which inspects objects). It explicitly mentions the texture source (Polyhaven) and prerequisite (must be downloaded first), making the purpose unambiguous.

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: after a texture has been downloaded via download_polyhaven_asset. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for applying non-Polyhaven textures) or name alternatives for similar operations, which prevents a perfect score.

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