animate_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the transformation and validates enum-like values. It does not mention that the operation is likely asynchronous, that a task id may need to be polled via get_meshy_task_status, or what side effects or return values to expect.

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 sentences, all information is load-bearing: the operation, the output format, and the two key constraints. No fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should state what the caller receives (e.g., a task id vs. a downloadable file) and how it fits into the sibling pipeline. It only describes the core transformation, which is incomplete for an async Meshy workflow.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful details for action_id (Meshy library with concrete IDs) and fps (allowed values), but leaves rig_task_id and timeout unexplained beyond their bare titles.

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 clear action ('Apply a motion to a rigged model') and the concrete output ('animated .glb'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rig_model (rigging) and generate_3d_model (generation). The action_id and fps constraints further scope the operation.

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?

No guidance about when to choose animate_model over sibling tools such as animate_to_youtube, nor about prerequisite steps like first calling rig_model. The need for a rig_task_id is implied but never stated as a precondition. Only operational constraints on action_id and fps are provided.

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