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. It states it's an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or performance implications of batch updates. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Update multiple Meshs in a single operation.' It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by clarifying it's a batch update.

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 tool's complexity (batch mutation with many configurable properties), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or constraints like ID validity. For a mutation tool in a rich sibling environment, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 fully documents the single parameter ('items' array with detailed sub-properties). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, merely restating that it updates multiple meshes. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 ('multiple Meshs'), specifying it's a batch operation ('in a single operation'). It distinguishes from single-update tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch tools like batchSetProperty or batchTransform, which could also affect meshes. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing meshes), compare to single-update methods, or specify use cases like bulk editing. With many sibling tools (e.g., batchSetProperty, transformVertices), the lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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