generate_3d

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

It discloses server-side execution, the image-compositing behavior, and returns a GLB file path openable in Blender/three.js/Quick Look. With no annotations, this carries the safety/behavior burden reasonably, though it leaves slight ambiguity about whether the default output is textured or untextured given the optional texture flag.

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?

Every sentence adds information: the first line is a crisp summary, then image requirements, return format, and a compact parameter list. It is long only because it carries type/range/default detail that no other structured field provides.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is thorough enough to call correctly: input path syntax, defaults, ranges, prerequisite for texture, and output file type are all covered. No critical call-time detail is missing.

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 0%, but the Args block documents all eight parameters with types, defaults, ranges, or conditions (e.g. octree_resolution [64,512] default 256; texture_steps [1,100] when texture=true). This fully compensates for the bare input schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a textured 3D mesh (GLB) from a subject image on the remote server.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like text_to_speech, generate_music, generate_video, and generate_image.

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 concrete input prerequisites (clean cutout with alpha, opaque photos composited on white) and a hard condition for texture mode (paint weights must be installed, otherwise a named error). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the 3D mesh target makes the decision context clear.

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