3D-MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes multiple constraints, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related objects), or returns confirmation. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 three words, front-loading the key action and resource. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may be overly terse for clarity.

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 (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavior, output, error handling, or context (e.g., what happens if some IDs are invalid). For a deletion tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'ids' clearly documented as 'Constraint identifiers to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, but since there's only one parameter and the schema fully covers it, the baseline is high. No compensation is needed, but no extra value is added either.

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 Constraints' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (Constraints), but it's vague about what 'Constraints' are in this context (e.g., 3D modeling constraints, database constraints). It distinguishes from siblings like 'deleteMaterials' or 'deleteKeyframes' by specifying the resource type, but lacks specificity about the domain or scope.

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 prerequisites (e.g., constraints must exist), when not to use it (e.g., if constraints are in use), or alternatives like 'updateConstraints' for modification instead of deletion. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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