3D-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Set properties') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns confirmation, or what happens on partial failures. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word earns its place - 'Set' (verb), 'properties' (what), 'on multiple objects' (scope).

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting properties, whether changes are reversible, what types of objects/properties are supported, or error handling. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (3D modeling/geometry operations), more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents the 'items' parameter structure. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying batch operations through 'multiple objects', which aligns with the array structure in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 properties on multiple objects' clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('properties on multiple objects'), but it's vague about what types of objects and properties are involved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'batchGetProperty' (get vs set) and 'setMetadata' (metadata vs properties), but doesn't specify scope beyond 'multiple objects'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'setMetadata', 'update*' tools, or 'batchSetParent'. The description implies batch operations but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or when to choose this over single-object property setting tools.

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