3D-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action 'Delete multiple Meshs'. It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 zero waste, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple function, though it lacks depth, this reflects conciseness rather than under-specification.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like irreversibility or error handling, but only states the basic action, leaving the agent under-informed 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' clearly documented as 'Mesh identifiers to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately defines the parameter.

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 Meshs' restates the tool name 'deleteMeshs' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Delete' and resource 'Meshs' but lacks detail on scope or differentiation from similar tools like 'deleteMaterials' or 'deleteVertexs', offering only basic purpose without specificity.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools like 'deleteMaterials' or 'deleteVertexs', leaving the agent without context for selection among deletion operations.

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