3D-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't state whether this is idempotent, requires specific permissions, affects existing data, or what happens on failure (e.g., partial creation). It lacks details on return values or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 just three words, front-loading the key action and resource. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick scanning. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 creating animation channels with 10 nested parameters per item, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the context (e.g., 3D animation), relationships to other tools (like 'createClips'), or behavioral aspects. For a mutation tool with rich input schema, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters in the nested 'items' array. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying bulk creation ('multiple Channels'), which is already evident from the 'items' array structure. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add value beyond 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 'Create multiple Channels' clearly states the action (create) and resource (Channels), but it's vague about what Channels are in this context (animation channels). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'createClips' or 'createKeyframes', which are related animation tools. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing clips or nodes), compare to single-channel creation, or explain its role relative to siblings like 'createClips' or 'updateChannels'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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