trident-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's an async operation requiring polling via 'task_status', and the output requires a separate download step. It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers the essential workflow clearly.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose with style options. Second sentence provides crucial workflow guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (async nature and follow-up steps) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 has an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It provides complete workflow context: async operation requiring polling then download. For a 2-parameter tool with good schema coverage and output schema, this description is appropriately complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 stylization effect') to a specific resource ('generated 3D model') and lists the exact style options (lego, voxel, voronoi, minecraft). It distinguishes from siblings like 'convert_format' or 'retopologize' by focusing on artistic style transformation rather than format conversion or mesh optimization.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by naming two specific sibling tools to use after this operation ('use task_status to poll progress, then download_model to retrieve the stylized model'). It also implies when-not-to-use by suggesting this is for post-generation styling rather than initial creation (vs 'text_to_3d' or 'image_to_3d').

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