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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if updates are atomic or partial, what happens on failure (e.g., if some items succeed and others fail), or any 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 that front-loads the core action ('Update multiple SubdivisionSurfaces') and adds a useful operational detail ('in a single operation'). There is zero wasted language, and it immediately communicates the tool's scope without 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?

Given the complexity of a batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, idempotency), does not explain what 'update' entails for SubdivisionSurfaces, and provides no guidance on usage relative to siblings. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor for this type of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter ('items') and its nested structure. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying batch processing through 'multiple SubdivisionSurfaces' and 'single operation', which is already evident from the schema's array type. This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 SubdivisionSurfaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a batch operation ('in a single operation'), which differentiates it from potential single-update tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'updateSubdivisionSurfaces' (singular) or 'setSubdivisionLevels' that might handle similar resources.

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 'updateSubdivisionSurfaces' (singular implied), 'setSubdivisionLevels', and various other update operations, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or trade-offs between batch and individual updates. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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