finish_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that geometry is untouched, that the tool alters albedo and creates an emissive texture, and that it is designed for re-runs. This is strong, though it does not clarify whether the input GLB is overwritten or how output_path influences file handling.

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 compact and front-loaded, with four sentences covering the primary action, texture mechanisms, pipeline separation, and a key parameter. Every sentence adds functional value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of the tool's behavior, safety, and re-runnability. It stops short of specifying output_path semantics and explicit sibling-tool alternatives, but the presence of an output schema and the sibling names help fill remaining context.

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 compensate. It explains the purpose of key params: tone_gamma/contrast/saturation for albedo tuning, accent_emissive for saturated accents, and seam_pinstripes with a 0-1 range and disable behavior. It does not explain seam_halo or explicitly define glb_path/output_path, but those are partially inferable from names.

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 delivers a specific verb and resource: 'Apply the game-look texture pass to a generated GLB.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like generate_model by noting it is 'Separated from generation' and re-runnable without regenerating, making the tool's role in the pipeline unmistakable.

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 establishes when to use the tool: after a GLB has been generated, and notes it can be reused with new tuning knobs. It implies this is the texturing step rather than generation/rendering, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or list exclusion cases.

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