Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that each piece becomes a new model and history item, faces the front, retains its own textures/rig/animations, and leaves the original unchanged. It also reveals that the operation is paid and priced by size, and directs the agent to get_lowpoly_job for completion. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and pricing, then piece behavior and polling instructions. Every sentence adds information and there is no padding.

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 an asynchronous start_job tool, the description covers the essential post-call behavior (poll get_lowpoly_job and inspect its pieces), cost, preservation of model attributes, and non-destructive behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be explained in the description.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; the cost and output context apply to the operation as a whole rather than individual parameters.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Break') and resource ('Low-Poly model into separate models'), with a concrete desk-scene example. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like start_lowpoly_generate, start_lowpoly_animate, and start_lowpoly_revise by describing a split operation.

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 establishes when to use the tool: to break an existing low-poly model into separate pieces. It also tells the agent to poll get_lowpoly_job afterward. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though context makes the intended use fairly clear.

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