generate_3d_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the input schema: it discloses that the operation is async ('Returns a requestId for async polling'), requires payment ('Requires a valid paid payment ID'), and implies a mutation (generating a 3D model). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or specific permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose, async nature, and payment requirement. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (async 3D model generation with payment requirements), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the async behavior and payment prerequisite but lacks details on output format (beyond requestId), error cases, or integration with sibling tools like check_job_status. This is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent fully.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (paymentId, imageBase64, modelId) with descriptions. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that paymentId must be 'paid' (implied in schema's 'Valid payment ID (must be paid)'). Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 a 3D model from an image.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('3D model'), and source ('from an image'), distinguishing it from siblings like generate_image or generate_video. The description is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Requires a valid paid payment ID.' This implies prerequisites (payment must be completed) and suggests usage after payment creation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., for non-image inputs or if payment is pending), which prevents a perfect score.

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