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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this starts an asynchronous conversion and returns a job id for polling, which is important behavioral context. It also explains source-format inference and the zip exception, though it does not cover failure modes or rate limits.

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 front-loaded and dense with actionable information, with no obvious filler. It is slightly packed but remains readable and appropriately sized for a six-parameter conversion tool.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description states that the tool returns a job id and points to job_status for polling. Combined with the fully described input schema, it gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly and follow up on the result.

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, but the description adds useful meaning: example target formats, the list_tools mesh-kind option, zip handling via `from`, and an example `options` object. It also clarifies how the source format is inferred from the file name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Starts a conversion.' It clearly explains that the tool converts 3D files to a target format or applies a mesh tool kind, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_tools and job_status.

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 gives clear invocation guidance: supply `to` and either `file_url` or an attached `file`, and poll with job_status afterward. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it against alternatives, but the workflow is unambiguous.

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