Generate 3D Model from Image

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only mark it non-read-only/non-idempotent) by disclosing runtime (~2–3 minutes), per-model credit costs and the Ultra +5 surcharge, default texturing behavior, and model-specific limits like 2K-only textures on meshy-6-lite. These cost/latency/default facts are exactly what an agent needs before committing to a paid, slow operation.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then cost, then input constraints, then an example — a sensible priority order for a 28-parameter tool. It is dense but every block earns its place; the only slack is the parenthetical repetition of default-vs-bare-mesh behavior.

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 an output schema exists (so return values need not be described) and annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining gaps: latency, pricing, input exclusivity, defaults, and deprecation warnings. An agent has everything required to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint that is not encoded structurally: that exactly ONE image input must be supplied, plus a concrete invocation example. It does not re-explain most parameters, which is appropriate when the schema already carries them.

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+resource ('Generate a 3D model from one image') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming the multi-view alternative (meshy_multi_image_to_3d) for multi-image inputs. An agent can distinguish this from meshy_text_to_3d and meshy_multi_image_to_3d without reading the schema.

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 'IMAGE INPUT (exactly ONE)' block tells the agent which input modes exist and explicitly recommends file_path over self-encoded base64, plus routes multi-view output to a named sibling. It falls short of 5 because it never states when to prefer this tool over meshy_text_to_3d or when a refine step is warranted beyond the inline note.

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