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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether this is destructive to existing data, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured - every word directly contributes to stating the tool's purpose.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what SubdivisionSurfaces are, what 'create' actually does operationally, what happens to the created objects, or what the tool returns. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and outcomes based solely on the name and parameter schema.

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 already documents the single 'items' parameter and all nested properties thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'SubdivisionSurfaces' are, why you'd create them, or provide any context for the parameter values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 SubdivisionSurfaces' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it specifies 'multiple' (plural), it doesn't explain what SubdivisionSurfaces are or what creation entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'createMeshs' or 'createBlendShapes', it doesn't differentiate beyond the resource type.

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's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a base mesh), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'createMeshs' or 'updateSubdivisionSurfaces'. The agent receives zero contextual usage information.

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