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 UVMaps' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing UVMaps), error handling, or output format. It lacks critical details like whether creation is atomic or batch-oriented, making it insufficient 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 UVMaps are, their role in 3D modeling, expected outcomes, or error conditions. Given the rich input schema and sibling tools like 'getUVMaps' and 'updateUVMaps', 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%, so the schema fully documents the 'items' parameter and its nested structure. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying multiple items can be created, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 UVMaps' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('UVMaps') but lacks detail on what UVMaps are or their purpose, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createMeshs' or 'updateUVMaps' beyond the resource name.

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., needing existing meshes), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'createMeshs', 'getUVMaps', or 'updateUVMaps', leaving usage context unclear.

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