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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral details: the high tier may fall back to standard under load, and the result renders inline in an interactive viewer. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits, which are not critical here.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output, and includes all key points (free, GLB, single entity, viewer, tier behavior) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: input prompt, tier options, and the interactive output. It doesn't mention job IDs or how to access the model beyond 'downloadable' and 'renders inline', but for this simplicity, it's largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the tier parameter's behavior (draft/standard/high, with fallback) and reinforces that the prompt should describe a single entity, which complements the schema without redundancy.

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 tool's function: converting a text prompt into a textured, downloadable GLB model. It specifies the output format, the kind of input (single object/character/creature), and the interactive viewer, making it distinct from sibling tools like forge_avatar or mesh_forge.

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?

It provides context on when to use it: it's free and intended for single-entity generation, which differentiates it from likely paid or avatar-specific tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it leaves some inference to the agent.

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