generate_hyper3d_model_via_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions built-in materials, normalized size, and return message, but omits details like generation time, cost, side effects on scene, or error handling, so transparency is moderate.

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 relatively concise with three sentences plus parameter details, front-loaded with purpose, but could be better structured (e.g., separate parameter list) with minimal 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 complexity (3D generation), no output schema, and sibling tools, the description provides essential purpose and main parameters but lacks details on failure modes, integration with import_generated_asset, and scene impact, making it somewhat complete but not thorough.

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 text_prompt and bbox_condition well, but fails to describe user_prompt, leaving one parameter undocumented, leading to partial but reasonable coverage.

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 explicitly states it generates a 3D asset using Hyper3D from a text description and imports it into Blender, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_hyper3d_model_via_images (which uses images) and generate_hunyuan3d_model (different model).

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 explains how to use the tool (by providing a text description) and notes post-generation rescaling, but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over siblings like generate_hyper3d_model_via_images or generate_hunyuan3d_model, leaving usage context implied.

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