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/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, error handling for invalid inputs, or what happens on success (e.g., returns IDs). It mentions 'multiple' but doesn't clarify limits or batch behavior. This leaves 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 is no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. 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 (a mutation tool for batch creation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what Groups are, behavioral aspects like side effects or errors, or what to expect upon success. The agent must rely heavily on the schema and guesswork, which is inadequate for safe and 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all parameters (items array with nested properties like name, objectIds, locked, visible, metadata, parentId). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying batch creation via 'multiple', which aligns with the items array in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 Groups' clearly states the action (create) and resource (Groups), and the plural 'multiple' hints at batch creation. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'createMaterials' or 'createMeshs' beyond the resource type, and it lacks specificity about what Groups are in this context (e.g., 3D modeling groups, organizational groups).

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., existing objects for objectIds), compare it to single-creation tools if any exist, or indicate scenarios where batch creation is preferred. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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