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 Vertexs' implies a destructive operation but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to connected geometry, permission requirements, or error handling for invalid IDs. This is inadequate for a destructive 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 at just three words, which is efficient for such a simple operation. However, it's arguably too brief given the destructive nature and lack of annotations, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Vertexs' are, what the deletion affects, whether there are side effects, or what happens on success/failure. Given the complexity and risk of deletion operations, more context is needed.

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 'Vertex identifiers to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with complete 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 Vertexs' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (Vertexs), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteVertexs' vs 'deleteEdges' or 'deleteFaces'. It lacks specificity about what 'Vertexs' are in this 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 sibling deletion tools (deleteBlendShapes, deleteEdges, deleteFaces, etc.), the description offers no context about when vertex deletion is appropriate versus other deletion operations.

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