3D-MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify if this is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing shapes), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how errors are handled. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it lacks detail, this is a matter of completeness, not conciseness.

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 (creating multiple 3D modeling objects with nested parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what BlendShapes are, the expected return values, error conditions, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 parameter 'items' and its nested properties. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the 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 'Create multiple BlendShapes' states the basic action and resource but is tautological with the tool name 'createBlendShapes'. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'updateBlendShapes' or 'deleteBlendShapes' beyond the verb, nor does it specify what BlendShapes are in this context (e.g., 3D modeling deformations).

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 like 'updateBlendShapes' or 'getBlendShapes'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing mesh), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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