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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this creates new creases or modifies existing ones, what permissions are needed, whether the operation is destructive to existing geometry, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate 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 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. While it may be too brief for complete understanding, every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what edge creasing does in 3D modeling, what the expected outcome is, whether the operation is reversible, or what errors might occur. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools list (3D modeling operations) and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context about this specific operation.

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 the single 'items' parameter well-documented in the schema as an array of edge crease operations with edgeId and creaseWeight. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't explain what creaseWeight values mean in practical terms.

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 'Set crease weights for edges' clearly states the action (set) and target (crease weights for edges), but it's somewhat vague about what 'crease weights' are in this 3D modeling context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateEdges' or 'bevel', which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the modeling 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 many sibling tools for edge manipulation (updateEdges, bevel, createEdges, deleteEdges, etc.), there's no indication of when edge creasing is appropriate versus other edge operations. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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