ClaudeKit Blender MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds context by specifying it creates materials with 'standard PBR properties' and uses a specific shader workflow, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter list, return note, and example. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters. Minor improvements could include integrating the example more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 (6 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering key behavioral hints, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, lists parameters with defaults, and provides an example. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description notes 'Returns: Success message', which partially compensates.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing parameters with brief notes (e.g., 'RGBA [r, g, b, a] with 0-1 values', 'default 0'), but doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create PBR material with Principled BSDF shader') and resource ('material'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like blender_set_material_property (modifies existing) or blender_apply_material (applies to objects). It specifies the exact shader type and workflow, 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 implies usage through the mention of 'Principled BSDF workflow' and the example, suggesting it's for creating new materials with standard properties. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like blender_set_material_property for modifying existing materials or blender_apply_material for assigning materials to objects.

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