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 mentions 'update' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, overwrites existing data, or handles errors. For a 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 with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, but overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 of UVMaps with nested parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'items' and its nested structure. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying batch operations, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 'Update multiple UVMaps in a single operation' clearly states the action (update) and resource (UVMaps), but it's vague about what 'update' entails—does it modify coordinates, metadata, or other properties? It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'createUVMaps' and 'deleteUVMaps' by focusing on updates, but lacks specificity on the scope of changes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for batch updates, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., existing UVMaps), exclusions, or when to choose single-update methods if available. Without such context, usage is unclear.

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