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. It states 'Create multiple Constraints', implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether creation is reversible, error conditions, or side effects. This leaves the agent with no insight into how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 two words, 'Create multiple Constraints'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by directly stating the action and resource.

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 constraints in 3D modeling (inferred from sibling tools), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to supplement it, and the description lacks context on what constraints are, their purpose, or behavioral details. For a mutation tool with no structured support, this minimal description fails to provide adequate completeness for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, meaning the input schema fully documents the single parameter 'items' and its nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 when no param info is added in the description.

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 Constraints' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('Constraints'), but lacks detail on what Constraints are or their purpose in the 3D modeling context, making it vague. Compared to siblings like 'createJoints' or 'createMaterials', it doesn't differentiate beyond the resource name.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing objects to constrain), exclusions, or related tools like 'updateConstraints' or 'deleteConstraints'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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