ClaudeKit Blender MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the error condition ('Returns "Object not found" if object_name doesn't exist') and describing the return format options. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but adds meaningful operational details.

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, returns, usage guidelines, error handling) and every sentence adds value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supporting details, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

For a read-only query tool with comprehensive annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, return formats, error conditions, and sibling tool differentiation. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the detailed return format descriptions in the description itself.

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 minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example for object_name ('e.g., "Cube", "Camera"') and clarifying the default for response_format, but doesn't add significant semantic context. 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 ('Query detailed properties') and resource ('specific Blender object by name'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it's for individual objects rather than entire scenes. The verb 'query' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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: Need specific object details before modifying' and 'Don't use when: Querying entire scene (use blender_get_scene_info instead)', including a named alternative tool. This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over others.

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