generate_hyper3d_model_via_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the asset has built-in materials and normalized size, and mentions success/failure return message. However, it lacks details on permissions, destructive potential, rate limits, or error states.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, parameter bullet points, and usage notes. It is mostly concise, though the instruction to 'wrap into a list' is repeated for both image parameters, adding minor redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description minimally covers return value ('message indicating success or failure'). It omits details on generation time, error handling, or what the imported asset looks like. The built-in materials and scaling notes help, but overall completeness is adequate with gaps.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains input_image_paths (absolute paths, required in MAIN_SITE mode), input_image_urls (URLs, required in FAL_AI mode), and bbox_condition (list of 3 ints for L/W/H ratio). It also clarifies array wrapping for single images. The user_prompt parameter in schema is not described, but it has a default and is less critical.

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 'generate' and resource '3D asset' via images, and explicitly mentions importing into Blender. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'generate_hyper3d_model_via_text' by specifying the input modality (images).

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 explicit guidance on when to use each parameter type based on Hyper3D Rodin's mode (MAIN_SITE vs FAL_AI) and that only one of input_image_paths/input_image_urls should be given. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like text generation.

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