generate_hyper3d_model_via_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions built-in materials and normalized size, but lacks details on success/failure conditions, side effects (e.g., overwriting scenes), async behavior, or required dependencies (e.g., Blender running). The return value is minimally described as a message.

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: a clear main sentence followed by bullet-like points for key traits and parameters. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 (text-to-3D generation and import), the description lacks critical context: import location/naming, whether the process is synchronous or async (hinted by sibling tools like 'get_hyper3d_status'), prerequisites, and error handling beyond a generic success/failure message. No output schema compounds this gap.

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 adds meaningful context to both parameters: text_prompt should be a short English description, and bbox_condition is an optional list of three floats controlling length/width/height ratio. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions. Schema coverage is 0%, so this compensation is important; however, more specifics like default values or ranges for bbox_condition would be helpful.

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's action: generating a 3D asset via Hyper3D from a text description and importing it into Blender. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_hyper3d_model_via_images' which uses images instead of text.

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 implies usage for text-based generation and mentions an optional bbox condition, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude certain scenarios. Sibling tools like 'generate_hyper3d_model_via_images' suggest image-based generation, but no comparison is provided.

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