3D-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Create multiple Drivers' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected output looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral traits.

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 at just two words. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, every word earns its place - 'Create' specifies the action and 'multiple Drivers' indicates the plural nature of the operation. There's no wasted language or 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 tool that creates complex entities with a detailed input schema (nested objects describing Drivers with expressions, variables, targets, etc.) and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what Drivers are, their purpose in the system, what happens after creation, or any behavioral aspects. With no annotations and a complex parameter structure, the description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool 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?

The description mentions 'multiple Drivers' which hints at the 'items' parameter being an array, but provides no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters are well-documented in the schema), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't add meaningful information about parameter usage, constraints, or relationships that aren't already covered by the comprehensive schema descriptions.

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 Drivers' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what a 'Driver' is in this context or what the creation entails. While it indicates the plural nature ('multiple'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from other creation tools like createChannels, createConstraints, or createMaterials in the sibling list.

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. There are many sibling tools for creating different types of entities (createChannels, createConstraints, createMaterials, etc.), but the description doesn't explain what makes Drivers unique or when they should be created instead of other entities. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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