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 fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation (modifies meshes), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., altering mesh topology), or what happens on failure. The description is too minimal to guide safe or effective use.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's action. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to other deficiencies.

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 of a 3D modeling operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'bridge' is, the expected outcome (e.g., new faces/edges), error conditions, or how it fits within the sibling toolset. For a tool that likely modifies mesh geometry, this minimal description is inadequate.

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%, providing clear documentation for all parameters (items array with faceLoopA, faceLoopB, meshId, smooth, twist). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 'Create bridges between face loops' states a basic action but lacks specificity. It doesn't explain what a 'bridge' operation entails in 3D modeling context (e.g., connecting loops with new geometry), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'createEdges' or 'createFaces' that might handle similar mesh operations. The purpose is vague beyond the literal interpretation.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring existing face loops), exclusions (e.g., not for non-loop edges), or suggest related tools like 'createEdges' or 'createFaces' for different mesh creation tasks. This leaves the agent with no contextual usage information.

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