generate_3d_from_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses async behavior, a specific failure mode (400 for unsupported engines), input precedence (local files win over URLs), and cost implications. This is detailed behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but well-organized: starts with the core action, then input modes, constraints, next steps, and costs. Each clause contributes useful information without redundancy, and the flow is logical.

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 tool's complexity (7 params, async workflow, no output schema), the description covers the essential workflow, including how to retrieve the result via wait_for_asset and files.model, engine limitations, and credit costs. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand how to invoke and follow up.

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 57% (4 of 7 params). The description adds valuable meaning for image_url/image_path (public URLs, prior generation files, no hosting needed) and clarifies multi-view ordering and engine support. However, engine, texture, and polycount are not described in either schema or description, leaving some gaps.

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 it generates a 3D model (GLB) from one or multiple images, distinguishing it from text-based generation and other sibling tools. It specifies input types (URLs or local paths) and the multi-view option, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: single vs multi-view, engine restrictions (tripo*, meshy6, hunyuan-3.x, others return 400), local files precedence over URLs, and the follow-up step to wait_for_asset and read files.model. It also directs users to list_models for credit information, acting as an alternative resource.

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