tripo_remesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavior: it overwrites the project's current model and creates a new version. That destructive/side-effecting trait is exactly what an agent needs. Missing are long-running/async behavior and permission requirements, though wait_seconds in the schema hints at blocking execution.

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 compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the overwrite warning immediately after; nothing is padded. The only soft waste is the internal endpoint reference 'operation/remesh', which has little decision value for an agent.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it destroys/replaces the current model, and how to retrieve the result. It stops short of explaining job tracking or how results differ from the source mesh, which would round it out.

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 86%, so the seven parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description only echoes '指定面数' (face_limit), adding nothing about quad/bake/smart_poly/part_name_list semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: retopologize/decimate an existing project down to a target face count. The phrase '把已有项目重新布线' clearly separates it from the generate_* siblings that create new assets, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied ('已有项目' = works on existing models, then call tripo_download for the result), which gives a useful hand-off to the next tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs tripo_upscale/tripo_complete, nor any when-not guidance; the mention of the internal endpoint 'operation/remesh' does not help an agent decide.

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