generate_hyper3d_model_via_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates and imports a 3D asset with built-in materials and normalized size, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'success or failure' entails, leaving gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Sentences like 'The 3D asset has built-in materials' and 'The generated model has a normalized size' add value without redundancy. The parameter section is clear but could be more integrated. Minor improvements in flow could achieve a 5.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic context but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and parameters, but lacks details on return values (beyond 'success or failure'), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and mutation behavior, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 meaning by explaining that 'text_prompt' is 'A short description of the desired model in **English**' and 'bbox_condition' controls the ratio between [Length, Width, Height]. This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., array length validation) or provide examples.

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 purpose: 'Generate 3D asset using Hyper3D by giving description of the desired asset, and import the asset into Blender.' It specifies the verb (generate and import), resource (3D asset), and technology (Hyper3D). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_hunyuan3d_model' or 'generate_hyper3d_model_via_images', which would require a 5.

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 by mentioning 'by giving description of the desired asset' and notes that 're-scaling after generation can be useful,' but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sibling tools (e.g., 'generate_hunyuan3d_model_via_images' for image-based generation). No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated.

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