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. 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are confirmation prompts, or what happens to dependent data. For a destructive batch operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, front-loading the essential information (delete operation, multiple items, resource type). There is zero waste or redundancy. Every word earns its place in communicating the core functionality.

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 destructive batch operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like deletion consequences, error handling, permissions, or what constitutes valid 'Channels' in this system. The combination of destructive operation + batch capability + zero safety annotations requires more comprehensive description than provided.

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 the single parameter 'ids' documented as 'Channel identifiers to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have provided context about valid ID formats or deletion constraints.

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 'Delete multiple Channels' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (Channels), with 'multiple' indicating batch operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'deleteChannels' vs 'deleteMaterials' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explain what 'Channels' are in this context, leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource being deleted.

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 are many sibling deletion tools (deleteMaterials, deleteMeshes, etc.) but no indication of when Channels specifically should be deleted versus other resources. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative approaches are mentioned.

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