generate_3d_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the blocking behavior, the two-stage process (preview then refine), details about texturing (enable_pbr, texture_prompt), and the return of local .glb path and task IDs. This is rich context, though it does not cover failure modes or timeout handling.

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 concise and well-structured, using line breaks and bullet-style listing for art_style and texture options. Every sentence adds value: purpose, workflow, parameter hints, and return info. No superfluous text.

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?

Given the absence of output schema, the description helpfully specifies the return values. It covers the main workflow and key parameters. However, it omits details on error handling, the meaning of task IDs, and the 'should_remesh' parameter. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it is mostly complete but could be improved.

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 explains prompt (required), art_style (lists values), enable_pbr and texture_prompt for refinement, and timeout (blocks). However, it fails to explain the 'should_remesh' parameter, which is present in the schema but absent from the description, leaving a gap.

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 tool generates a 3D model from a text prompt via Meshy.ai, with a preview-to-refine workflow. It lists art style options and distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_3d_from_image or animate_model by focusing on text-to-3D generation.

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 briefly mentions the refine stage textures the model and that the tool blocks until ready, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_3d_from_image) or provide contraindications. The context of sibling tools helps, but direct guidance is missing.

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