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. It states 'Create multiple Keyframes', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a tool that likely modifies data, this lack of detail is a significant gap, leaving the agent uncertain about 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 with a single three-word phrase. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to underspecification in other dimensions. Every word directly states the core action without fluff.

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 tool's complexity (creating multiple structured keyframes with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what keyframes are, their role in the system, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with rich input schema, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter documentation in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying multiple items via 'multiple Keyframes', which is already covered by the 'items' array in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 Keyframes' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'Keyframes' but lacks specificity about what keyframes are or their domain (e.g., animation, graphics). Compared to siblings like 'createChannels' or 'createJoints', it doesn't differentiate the purpose beyond the basic action.

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 channels), exclusions, or related tools like 'updateKeyframes' or 'deleteKeyframes' from the sibling list. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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