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. 'Create multiple Layers' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify if this is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing layers), requires specific permissions, or has side effects like affecting scene hierarchy. It lacks details on error handling or response format.

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 Layers', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. It efficiently conveys the core action without 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Layers' are, how they integrate with the system (e.g., relation to clips or hierarchy), or what happens upon creation. Given the complexity implied by parameters like 'additive' and 'parentId', more context is needed for 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%, so the schema fully documents the 'items' parameter and its nested properties (e.g., name, additive, clipIds). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying multiple creation, which is already clear from the parameter name 'items' being an array. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema 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 Layers' clearly states the action (create) and resource (Layers), but it's vague about what 'Layers' are in this context (e.g., animation layers, 3D model layers). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'createBlendShapes' or 'createMaterials', leaving ambiguity about the specific domain.

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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for batch creation versus single creation, or prerequisites like needing existing clips or parent layers. The description alone offers no usage context.

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