tripo_pbr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about whether this is an async job, whether it costs credits, whether regenerating overwrites existing material, or what happens on a project without textures. The internal endpoint reference (operation/pbr_generate) is implementation detail, not behavioral context.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding. The trailing internal-API reference is of little use to an agent but costs only a clause.

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?

No output schema and no annotations for a tool with a wait_seconds parameter, implying a long-running or job-style operation. The agent gets no information about return shape, whether to poll tripo_status, or how to detect completion — a significant gap given 18 sibling tools including a status tool.

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 67%; wait_seconds and model_version carry their own defaults, and project_id is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by constraining project_id to a project that already has textures, but says nothing about the 480s wait semantics or model version choice.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: generates PBR material (metallic/roughness/normal) for a project that already has textures. That scope is clear enough to separate it from a texture-generation sibling, but the description never names tripo_texture or any other sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

'给已有贴图的项目' is an implicit precondition — the agent can infer this runs after texturing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement about what to do if the project lacks textures, and no named alternative such as tripo_texture for the preceding step.

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