ClaudeKit Blender MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate this is a destructive operation (destructiveHint: true), the description elaborates with performance impact details ('Moderate impact depending on mesh complexity, typically 5-60 seconds') and clarifies what gets preserved (visual quality, essential attributes). This provides practical implementation context that annotations alone don't convey.

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, parameters, returns, examples, usage guidance, performance). Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's core function.

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 destructive optimization tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, parameters, return format, examples, usage scenarios, performance characteristics, and alternatives. The combination of detailed description and comprehensive annotations (including destructiveHint) gives the agent sufficient context to use this tool appropriately.

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's parameter section mostly repeats what's in the schema, though it adds minor context about the trade-off between target_poly_count and decimation_ratio approaches through examples. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('optimize 3D assets for better performance') and the methods used ('through mesh decimation and cleanup'), distinguishing it from siblings like export or modification tools. It explicitly mentions reducing polygon count and optimizing geometry while preserving visual quality.

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 'Use when' guidance (optimizing for real-time applications, reducing file sizes, performance improvements) and 'Don't use when' guidance (preserving maximum detail for rendering, with an alternative named: 'use export with high quality instead'). This clearly distinguishes when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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