generate_3d_from_image

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

With no annotations, description must cover behavior. It discloses async operation, cost implications, and workflow steps. However, it omits limits like file size for image_url, supported image formats, error modes, or timeouts. This leaves gaps for a complex tool.

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, each earning its place. First sentence defines purpose and async nature. Second adds parameter choice and subsequent steps. No redundancy, well front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain returns. Mentions read files.model but no details on model format or properties. Workflow is partially explained (wait_for_asset). Cost info is helpful, but lacks complete picture for a multi-parameter async tool.

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 only 20% (image_path described). Description adds meaning for image_url and image_path—explains acceptable sources and how to use them. But engine, texture, and polycount are not explained, leaving their purpose unclear. Compensates partially for low coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Generate a 3D model (GLB) from a single image (async)'. Distinguishes from siblings like generate_3d_from_text (text input) and generate_image (2D output). The verb 'generate' and resource '3D model' are specific.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on choosing between image_url and image_path. Mentions async nature and subsequent steps (wait_for_asset, read files.model). Also notes cost and refers to list_models for pricing. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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