generate_hyper3d_model_via_text

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

The description says the model has built-in materials and normalized size, and re-scaling may be needed. However, it does not disclose if the process is synchronous or async, nor does it mention any authorization or rate limits. With no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure.

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 short but includes some redundant phrasing (e.g., 'the desired asset' repeated). It front-loads the main action but lacks bullet points or clear separation of parameter details.

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 and no annotations, the description should provide a fuller picture. It misses details on error handling, status polling (since siblings exist), and the nature of the success/failure message. The omission of user_prompt further reduces completeness.

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 the description must explain parameters. It covers text_prompt and bbox_condition, but entirely omits the user_prompt parameter. This is a significant gap, leaving the agent unaware of a third parameter's purpose.

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 tool generates a 3D asset via text description and imports it into Blender, distinguishing it from the sibling tool that uses images. The verb 'Generate' and resource '3D asset using Hyper3D' are specific.

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 implies usage via text prompt but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like generate_hyper3d_model_via_images or other modeling tools. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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