tripo_segment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a critical silent-failure mode (retopologized projects produce no response) that the schema cannot express. But it omits whether this mutates/replaces the project mesh, that it is a long-running operation (implied only by wait_seconds' 480s default), and whether a status poll via tripo_status is required afterward.

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 short sentences with the operative constraint front-loaded and no filler. The only dead weight is the internal API reference, which serves no selection purpose 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 mutation-style, potentially long-running tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description never says whether the result is a new mesh, an in-place replacement, or a job requiring tripo_status polling. The disclosed retopology caveat is valuable but leaves the operational contract largely unspecified.

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 75%: granularity already documents part-count ranges per enum value and both wait_seconds and model_version carry defaults in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource ('部件拆分' / part segmentation) and scopes it to non-retopologized original meshes, which implicitly distinguishes it from tripo_remesh. The internal operation path 'operation/ai_segmentation' adds nothing for an agent choosing a tool, and 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?

Gives a real exclusion: only original meshes work, retopologized projects silently do nothing — this is genuinely useful precondition guidance. However it does not route the agent to an alternative (e.g. tripo_remesh, or what to do instead when the project has been retopologized), so the when-to-use vs. alternatives picture is incomplete.

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