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. 'Apply transformations' implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how errors are handled. The description adds no context beyond the basic action statement.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'transformations' entail, what objects are affected, how results are returned, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by the input schema (with multiple transformation types), more context is needed for effective use.

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 single 'items' parameter and its nested properties. The description mentions 'transformations' which aligns with the schema's transformation fields (position, rotation, scale), but adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, constraints, or semantics beyond what's already in the schema.

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 'Apply transformations to multiple objects' clearly states the action (apply transformations) and target (multiple objects), but it's vague about what types of transformations are involved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'transformVertices' or 'transformUVs' which also apply transformations to specific object types.

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. With many sibling tools that perform transformations (e.g., transformVertices, transformUVs, batchSetProperty), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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