3D-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Set parent' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible (e.g., via 'undo'), what happens on failure (e.g., partial updates), or rate limits. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Set parent for multiple objects'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (batch mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'objects' refer to (e.g., in a 3D context), the impact of reparenting (e.g., on transforms or hierarchies), or return values. For a tool that modifies multiple items, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'items' (parent assignments) and 'maintainWorldTransform' (preserve world transforms). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional value is provided in the description.

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 'Set parent for multiple objects' clearly states the action (set parent) and scope (multiple objects), which distinguishes it from tools like 'getChildren' or 'createGroups'. However, it doesn't specify what type of objects (e.g., 3D objects, meshes, groups) or differentiate from similar batch operations like 'batchSetProperty' beyond the parent-specific action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing objects), when not to use it (e.g., for single objects), or compare to sibling tools like 'batchTransform' or 'createGroups' for hierarchical operations. The description alone offers no usage context.

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