ClaudeKit Blender MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that 'at least one transform property must be provided' (a constraint not in annotations) and describes the return format ('Success message with updated properties'). Annotations already cover read/write status (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and safety (destructiveHint=false), so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details and usage guidelines. Every sentence serves a clear purpose: defining the tool's function, specifying parameters, stating constraints, describing returns, and providing usage guidance. There is no wasted text.

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 transformation tool with comprehensive annotations (covering mutation, idempotency, and safety) and full schema coverage, the description provides complete contextual information. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter constraints, return format, and usage guidelines relative to alternatives. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the return value.

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 repeats some parameter information (e.g., 'rotation in radians') but adds minimal new semantics beyond the schema. It does clarify the 'at least one transform property' constraint, which provides some additional context about parameter interactions.

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 with specific verbs ('modify transforms', 'update location, rotation, and/or scale') and identifies the resource ('existing Blender object'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'create_primitive' for object creation, making its scope 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 provides explicit usage guidelines with 'Use when: Positioning, rotating, or scaling existing objects' and 'Don't use when: Creating new objects (use create_primitive instead)'. It names a specific alternative tool and clearly defines the appropriate context, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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