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' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects dependent structures, or has confirmation steps. It mentions 'multiple' which hints at batch capability, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or rate limits.

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?

Extremely concise at three words with zero waste. The description is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what Joints are, the impact of deletion, return values, or error conditions. Given the complexity of a deletion operation in a 3D modeling context (inferred from sibling tools), more context is needed for safe and 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% with the parameter 'ids' documented as 'Joint identifiers to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also adds no value.

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 Joints' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (Joints), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like deleteIKChains or deleteGroups. It specifies 'multiple' which adds some context, but doesn't clarify what Joints are or what deletion entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deleteIKChains or deleteGroups. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for 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.