lunaar_image_to_3d

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

Discloses cost (10 credits), latency (2-4 minutes), and asynchronous behavior (polling). This compensates for lack of annotations. However, does not detail if the tool modifies any state or what happens to uploaded images.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, cost, latency, and fallback. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 covers essential behavioral aspects: input (photo), output (GLB + video), cost, timing, and error handling fallback. Missing details about required image characteristics (e.g., background, size) but overall adequate.

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?

The description clarifies that the imagePath parameter should be a 'single product photo', adding context beyond the schema. The targetHeightCm parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description partially compensates for the 50% schema 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?

Clearly states that the tool generates a GLB 3D model and spinning preview video from a single product photo. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lunaar_jewelry_tryon or lunaar_product_shot which focus on different tasks.

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?

Mentions credit cost and latency. Provides explicit alternative: use lunaar_get_operation if polling window exceeded. However, does not specify when not to use this tool (e.g., for non-product photos or non-3D needs).

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