3D-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Duplicate an entity' only states the basic action without any information about side effects, permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool that creates new entities, this lack of behavioral context is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing about important operational characteristics.

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 maximally concise with just three words: 'Duplicate an entity.' While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring framework, extremely brief descriptions that don't waste words receive high conciseness scores. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is insufficiently informative.

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 complexity of a duplication operation (creating new entities with configurable options for children and dependencies), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'entity' means in this context, what happens during duplication, what the result looks like, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about fundamental aspects of this tool's behavior and output.

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%, meaning all four parameters (id, newName, duplicateChildren, duplicateDependencies) are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Duplicate an entity' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'duplicate' without adding meaningful specificity. While it indicates the verb (duplicate) and resource (entity), it doesn't clarify what type of entity (e.g., mesh, material, group) or distinguish this tool from potential alternatives among the many sibling tools. This minimal description fails to provide the context needed for an AI agent to understand what exactly is being duplicated.

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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'createMeshs', 'copy', 'batchTransform', and others that might create or replicate entities, there's no indication of when duplication is preferred over creation or other operations. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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