ClaudeKit Blender MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Performance: Fast network request, typically 1-3 seconds' and 'Content: Updated daily based on community downloads and ratings.' While annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, these additional details about performance frequency and update cadence provide helpful operational context for the agent.

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 (description, args, returns, examples, usage guidance, performance, content). While somewhat lengthy, each section serves a purpose and is front-loaded with the core functionality. The examples are particularly helpful but contribute to the length.

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 full schema coverage, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, performance characteristics, and update frequency. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description does specify what's returned ('List of popular assets with download counts and ratings').

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats what's in the schema without adding significant additional semantic context. The examples provide some usage patterns but don't add parameter meaning beyond the schema's enum values and descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get trending and popular assets from PolyHaven' and specifies it returns 'most downloaded and highly-rated assets across different categories.' It distinguishes from the sibling 'blender_search_polyhaven' by focusing on trending/popular assets rather than specific criteria searches.

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 usage guidance with 'Use when: Discovering trending assets, finding high-quality content, asset inspiration' and 'Don't use when: Searching for specific criteria (use search_polyhaven instead).' It names the alternative tool and gives clear context for when to use this tool versus the sibling.

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