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. 'Update' implies mutation, but there's no information about permissions required, whether updates are atomic/transactional, error handling for partial failures, or what happens to existing driver configurations not mentioned. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. Every word earns its place: 'Update' (action), 'multiple Drivers' (resource and scope), 'in a single operation' (batch characteristic).

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 batch mutation tool with complex nested parameters (items array with multiple sub-properties), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what Drivers are, what 'updating' entails, expected outcomes, or error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant external knowledge.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'items' parameter and its nested structure comprehensively. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Drivers'), and specifies it's a batch operation ('multiple Drivers in a single operation'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateDrivers' vs 'updateChannels' or 'updateMaterials' - all have similar 'updateX' patterns without explaining what distinguishes Drivers from other entities.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when batch updating is preferable to individual updates, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'createDrivers' or 'getDrivers'. The description provides only the basic function without context.

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