generate_hyper3d_model_via_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the asset has built-in materials and normalized size, but is ambiguous about whether import into Blender is automatic or requires a separate call (sibling import_generated_asset exists). It does not disclose async behavior, failure modes, or idempotency, leading to potential confusion.

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 moderately concise with about 9 lines, but includes some redundancy (e.g., separate sentences about built-in materials and normalized size). The core purpose is front-loaded, but parameter details could be integrated more compactly.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers generation and parameter usage. However, it lacks details on async behavior (despite a sibling poll_rodin_job_status), return value specifics, and whether import is automatic. Integration hints with sibling tools would improve 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains input_image_paths as absolute paths (required in MAIN_SITE mode), input_image_urls as URLs (required in FAL_AI mode), and bbox_condition as controlling length/width/height ratio. It also clarifies that single images must be wrapped in a list.

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 using Hyper3D from images and imports it into Blender. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool generate_hyper3d_model_via_text, which uses text input.

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 specifies when to use input_image_paths vs input_image_urls based on Hyper3D Rodin's mode, and notes that only one should be given. It also mentions re-scaling after generation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusions.

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