ClaudeKit Blender MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: performance ('Fast network request, typically 1-3 seconds') and licensing behavior ('Returns CC0 licensing information for all assets'), which are not captured in 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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, Args, Returns, Examples, Use when/Don't use when, Performance, License). Every sentence adds value, such as performance and licensing details, with no redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameters (via schema), behavioral context (performance, licensing), and examples. With annotations providing safety hints, no critical information is missing for effective agent use.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description's 'Args' section repeats the schema information without adding new meaning (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'asset ID' format is or provide examples beyond those in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific PolyHaven asset'), distinguishing it from siblings like blender_download_polyhaven_asset (for downloading) and blender_search_polyhaven (for searching). The title reinforces this with 'Get PolyHaven Asset Details'.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' sections provide clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, naming blender_download_polyhaven_asset as the alternative for downloading. This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation.

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