generate_hunyuan3d_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explicitly mentions the asynchronous workflow (returns job_id, status changes to DONE), import into Blender, built-in materials, and error messages. This goes beyond basic expectations, though it does not detail polling requirements or prerequisites.

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 compact and well-organized: it starts with the primary action, then lists parameters, and finishes with return behavior. Every sentence provides value, and the structure is easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Covers the core workflow, input methods, and return format, which is good for an async generation tool. However, the omission of user_prompt and the ambiguous relationship to separate import/polling tools (e.g., import_generated_asset_hunyuan) leaves some context gaps. Without annotations or an output schema, the description does not fully resolve the complete operation flow.

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?

Adds meaningful descriptions for text_prompt (short English/Chinese description) and input_image_url (local/remote URL, accepts None). However, the schema's third parameter, user_prompt, is entirely omitted, and since schema description coverage is 0%, this missing parameter leaves a notable gap in understanding the full input interface.

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 generates a 3D asset via Hunyuan3D from text or image and imports it into Blender. This distinguishes it from sibling generation tools (e.g., Hyper3D) and import-only tools. The verb 'generate' and resource '3D asset using Hunyuan3D' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: for Hunyuan3D generation with text, image, or both. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some implicit differentiation from sibling tools like Hyper3D generation or separate import tools.

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