3D-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what happens on success (e.g., returns edge IDs). The single word 'Create' implies mutation but lacks essential context about side effects.

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, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create') and object ('Edges'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what Edges are, their role in 3D meshes, expected outcomes, error conditions, or relationships to other tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool 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%, so the schema fully documents the single 'items' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where structured data 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 Edges' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it specifies 'multiple' (implying batch creation), it doesn't explain what 'Edges' are in this 3D modeling context or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'createFaces' or 'createVertexs' that create other mesh components.

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 vertices or meshes), appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like 'createFaces' or 'updateEdges'. The agent receives no usage direction.

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