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 discloses minimal behavioral traits. It indicates a destructive operation ('Delete') but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are needed, whether it affects dependent objects, or what happens on partial failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 at just three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick scanning while conveying the core purpose.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens to dependent geometry, whether the operation can be undone, error conditions, or confirmation requirements. The combination of destructive nature and lack of structured metadata makes this description insufficient.

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 one parameter clearly documented as 'SubdivisionSurface identifiers to delete.' The description adds value by specifying 'multiple' which implies the array nature of the parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers well. With zero parameters requiring extra explanation, baseline 4 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 SubdivisionSurfaces' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (SubdivisionSurfaces), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like deleteMeshes or deleteFaces. It specifies 'multiple' which adds some context, but lacks precision about what deletion entails in this 3D modeling context.

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 many deletion tools in the sibling list (deleteMeshes, deleteFaces, deleteVertexs, etc.), the description offers no context about when SubdivisionSurface deletion is appropriate versus other deletion operations or what prerequisites might exist.

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