3D-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are destructive or reversible, error conditions, or what happens to other curve properties. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 5 words with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand at a glance.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'editing' entails, what happens after modification, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for using this tool is incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions for 'items', 'curveId', 'controlPointIndex', 'position', and 'weight'. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples.

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 'Edit control points of curves' clearly states the action (edit) and target (control points of curves), but it's somewhat vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateCurves' or 'transformVertices'. It specifies what's being edited but not the nature or extent of the editing operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'updateCurves', 'transformVertices', and 'createCurves', there's no indication of when this specific control point editing tool is appropriate versus broader curve modification tools.

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