meshy_advance_workflow

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation is PAID, returns promptly without polling, uses saved IDs to prevent resubmitting completed stages, and requires recovery rather than repeat submission in uncertain cases. These are valuable behavioral traits not present in the structured annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, the no-polling behavior, and the recovery rule. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 behavioral safety and workflow shape are well covered, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, with the sole required parameter undocumented and the uncertainty/failure conditions not fully operationalized, an agent may still be unsure exactly what to pass and when to decide a submission is uncertain.

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% and the description does not explain run_dir at all. The only indirect clue is that 'Saved IDs' are involved, which may relate to the run directory, but there is no format, purpose, or example for the required parameter.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Check progress once and submit PAID adaptive low-poly remesh when generation succeeds.' This clearly identifies both the verb and the resource, and distinguishes the tool from siblings like meshy_workflow_status (checking only) or meshy_start_multiview (starting a different workflow).

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 provides clear usage context: use it once generation succeeds, don't poll, and never retry blindly. It also routes uncertain outcomes to recovery rather than repeat submission or a new run. It does not explicitly name meshy_recover_submission, but the guidance is strong and actionable.

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