text_to_3d_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async nature and that results are obtained via polling. However, it does not detail error handling, rate limits, authorization needs, or what the task response contains. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with purpose and result, then immediate workflow guidance. No redundancy or wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: async task, two-step process, polling. It could mention the need to wait for the task to complete, but the reference to polling implies this. Overall, it is fairly complete for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds context by linking mode to the workflow, but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (generate), resource (3D model), and input (text prompt). It specifies the async behavior (returns task ID) and differentiates from the sibling image_to_3d_create by explicitly mentioning text prompt.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Use mode preview first, then refine with the preview_task_id.' This gives clear when-to-use instructions and the correct sequence, which is crucial for a two-step process.

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