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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or rate limits. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Update multiple Clips in a single operation.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the operation type, target, and batch nature.

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 batch update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a mutation 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 parameter 'items' well-documented as an array of Clips to update with IDs. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the structure of items, default behaviors, or constraints. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 'Update multiple Clips in a single operation' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('Clips'), and specifies it's a batch operation ('multiple...in a single operation'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'updateBlendShapes' or 'updateMaterials'—it only clarifies it's for Clips specifically, not how it differs from other update operations. This makes the purpose clear but not fully differentiated from alternatives.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing Clips), compare it to single-update methods, or specify scenarios where batch updating is preferred. With many sibling tools including 'updateClips' and others like 'createClips' or 'deleteClips', the lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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