ClaudeKit Blender MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses performance ('Network-dependent, typically 1-5 seconds') and licensing information ('All PolyHaven assets are CC0'), which are not captured in annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 (Args, Returns, Examples, Use when/Don't use when, Performance, License), making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details (e.g., the second sentence about PolyHaven's offerings is helpful but not strictly necessary for tool invocation).

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameters (via schema with 100% coverage), behavioral traits (performance, licensing), and distinguishes from siblings. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description partially compensates by mentioning return values ('Search results with asset metadata, thumbnails, and download options').

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description lists parameters and provides examples, but these mostly restate what's in the schema (e.g., 'query (optional): Search query for assets' mirrors the schema description). It adds minimal extra semantics, such as example usage, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's baseline.

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 searches the PolyHaven library for free 3D assets, textures, and HDRIs, specifying the resource (PolyHaven library) and action (search). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the alternative 'download_polyhaven_asset' for downloading specific assets, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 explicitly provides 'Use when' scenarios (finding reference assets, texture sourcing, environment creation) and 'Don't use when' guidance (downloading specific assets, with a named alternative 'download_polyhaven_asset'). This gives clear, actionable context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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