3D-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete multiple Faces' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether deletions are permanent, reversible via undo, require specific permissions, or have side effects on related mesh data. For a destructive tool 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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the key action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like confirmation prompts, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool in a 3D modeling context with many sibling alternatives, more guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 parameter 'ids' clearly documented as 'Face identifiers to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples for the identifiers. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Faces' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (Faces), but it's vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like deleteEdges or deleteVertexs. It doesn't specify what 'Faces' are in this context (e.g., 3D mesh faces) or how this differs from other deletion tools.

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. With sibling tools like deleteEdges, deleteVertexs, and clearSelection available, the description doesn't indicate whether this is for bulk operations, irreversible deletions, or specific use cases. There's no mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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