ClaudeKit Blender MCP

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context about what gets created (mesh primitive) and the default behavior (auto-generated name, default location/scale), though it doesn't mention rate limits or specific authentication needs. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples, usage guidelines), front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the formatting makes it easy to scan 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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), comprehensive annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, parameters, examples, and usage guidelines, making it fully adequate for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing parameters with their defaults, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like edge cases or usage examples 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 basic 3D primitive object') and resource ('in Blender scene'), with explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'execute_blender_code' for complex geometry. It goes beyond just restating the name/title by specifying what type of object is created and where.

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 explicit guidance with 'Use when: Starting new scene, adding basic geometry' and 'Don't use when: Need complex custom geometry (use execute_blender_code instead)', naming a specific alternative tool. This gives clear context for when to choose this tool versus other options.

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