meshy_start_multiview

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows it is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it mentions the task is 'PAID' (cost implication), that local images are sent to Meshy, and gives practical advice about not repeating after uncertainty (reinforcing non-idempotency). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides a next-step instruction and a caution. Every sentence contributes actionable information, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return values are not required in the description. The tool is complex (paid, multi-view input, workflow continuation), and the description covers the key aspects: what it does, that it's paid, how to continue, and what to do on uncertainty. The only gap is the undocumented optional texture_prompt and the lack of explicit mention of prerequisites (like planning), but these are not critical for the start action.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'four views' which maps to the front, back, left, right parameters, and 'saved run directory' explains output_dir. However, it does not mention the optional texture_prompt parameter at all, and it does not specify the expected format (e.g., file paths vs. URLs) beyond implying local images. It adds some meaning but not comprehensive coverage for all parameters.

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 action ('Submit one PAID textured Multi-Image to 3D task'), the input (four views), and the result (return the saved run directory). It distinguishes itself from siblings like meshy_plan_multiview and meshy_advance_workflow by indicating it is the start step and that the workflow continues with meshy_advance_workflow. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explicitly says 'Continue this run with meshy_advance_workflow' and warns 'Do not repeat start after an uncertain submission; inspect tasks and recover its ID.' This tells the agent when not to use the tool (after uncertainty) and points to alternatives (meshy_list_tasks or meshy_recover_submission). It provides clear context for selecting this tool over others.

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