remesh_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool remeshes and exports, implying modification, but does not disclose whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, what the output structure is, or any side effects (e.g., no destructive hint or read-only hint). The presence of many async siblings suggests it may return a task ID, but this is not confirmed.

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 serving a distinct purpose: first explains the core action and formats, second gives input constraints. No redundant information, efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite high parameter coverage, the description omits critical context: no output schema means the agent doesn't know what the tool returns (likely a task ID), no annotations for safety or permissions, and no workflow guidance (e.g., 'use after generation' or 'check wait_for_task'). The tool has 8 parameters but the description doesn't explain how they interplay or typical use scenarios.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the available formats and clarifying that only one of input_task_id or model_url should be provided (mutual exclusivity hinted, though not enforced). This reduces ambiguity beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 remeshes and exports a 3D model into specific formats (glb, fbx, obj, usdz, blend, stl), and mentions the input options (input_task_id or model_url). While it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remesh_delete or remesh_get, it does not explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., image_to_3d_create, text_to_3d_create).

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 a usage hint ('Provide either input_task_id or model_url') but lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., retexture_create, image_to_3d_create). No context is given about prerequisites, workflow position, or decision criteria for choosing remeshing over other operations.

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