generate_hyper3d_model_via_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool generates an asset; it does not disclose whether generation is asynchronous, whether it returns a job ID, whether polling is required, or whether credits are consumed. Given sibling tools like 'poll_rodin_job_status' and 'import_generated_asset', these behavioral details are materially relevant.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word adds relevant information about the tool's purpose.

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?

The description is minimal and does not explain important context such as the asynchronous generation lifecycle, the expected output, or downstream steps like polling status and importing the generated asset. The presence of related poll/import/status siblings suggests this tool is part of a multi-step workflow, but the description leaves that implicit.

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 100%, and the schema already explains 'text_prompt' and 'bbox_condition' clearly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action, 'Generate 3D asset', and names both the technology ('using Hyper3D') and the input mode ('from text description'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'generate_hyper3d_model_via_images' and from the Hunyuan-based generation tools.

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 phrase 'from text description' provides a clear usage condition: this tool is appropriate when the user supplies a text prompt. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the input-mode context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over image-based generation.

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