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 bears full responsibility. It discloses that the model has built-in materials, normalized size, and returns a success/failure message, but omits behavioral details such as scene modification impact, permission requirements, or whether generation is synchronous.

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 brief at four sentences, with the main action first followed by notable attributes and parameter details. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter explanations could be integrated more tightly.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (generates and imports a 3D model) with no output schema. The description states the return is a success/failure message but does not specify how to reference the generated object in Blender, whether it is automatically selected, or how it interacts with operations like 'import_generated_asset'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: text_prompt should be a short English description; bbox_condition is optional, must be a list of three floats controlling Length/Width/Height ratio. This goes beyond the raw schema, though more detail on float range could help.

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 function: generating a 3D asset using Hyper3D from a text description and importing it into Blender. The sibling tool 'generate_hyper3d_model_via_images' confirms differentiation by input modality.

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 that this tool is for text-based generation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the image-based alternative. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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