generate_3d

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the key side effect of loading the generated model into the scene, but it omits important behavioral context such as whether generation is synchronous, whether it can overwrite existing scene content, failure behavior, or how the idempotency key affects 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, leading with the core purpose before listing arguments. The Args section is neat and easy to scan, though it could be improved by noting optionality and the two undocumented parameters.

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 that the tool has six parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain command_id and idempotency_key, does not state which input parameter(s) are actually needed, and provides no guidance on input precedence or behavior when both text_prompt and image_url are supplied.

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 description explains text_prompt, image_url, position, and scale with meaningful formatting details, which is valuable because schema description coverage is 0%. However, it completely omits command_id and idempotency_key, and it does not clarify that text_prompt and image_url may be alternative mutually exclusive inputs.

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 action with a clear resource: generate a 3D model from text or image using Beaver3D, then load it into the scene. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_object or spawn_nvidia_asset by naming the source and generation method.

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 first sentence implies when to use this tool: when a 3D model needs to be generated from a text prompt or image and placed into the scene. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or compare against alternative tools, leaving the usage context largely implicit.

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