Convert 3D Model Format

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations lack: the exact cost (1 credit) and the economic trade-off versus remesh, which matters for agent budgeting.

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, purpose front-loaded, cost and the remesh comparison immediately after, then a compact example. Every element earns its place, though the example is mildly redundant given the 100%-covered schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate parameters or return values. Purpose, cost, and a call example are sufficient for a conversion tool; only explicit source-precondition guidance is missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the enum values for target_formats and the precedence of input_task_id over model_url. The description adds only a worked example, which is illustrative but not additive semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Convert a model to other file formats") and scopes it as format-only, which implicitly distinguishes it from geometry-altering siblings like meshy_remesh and meshy_retexture. It stops short of naming those siblings directly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

"cheaper than remesh for a format-only change" gives an implied when-to-use signal by contrast with meshy_remesh, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the source must be a SUCCEEDED task or a public URL), and no routing to alternatives for other transformation needs.

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