Generate 3D Model from Image

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent generation call. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — typical 2–3 minute runtime and a credit cost breakdown per model plus texture and Ultra add-ons — but says nothing about async/task-id behavior, polling, or failure modes, which matter for a long-running generation.

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-loaded with purpose, default behavior, timing and cost, then organized into a labeled IMAGE INPUT block and a project-to-model list. The cost line is compressed almost to illegibility ('meshy-7.1 / latest / meshy-6 20'), which costs a bit of clarity, but the overall structure is scannable and nearly every line carries decision-relevant information.

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 29 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema present, the description covers the decision-critical surface: which input field, which model pairing, cost and duration, and a full example call. Remaining gaps — async task lifecycle and how the returned artifacts are retrieved — are partly handled by the output schema and sibling tools like meshy_get_task_status.

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 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds real interpretive value on the hardest choice — how ai_model and texture_model pair per project — plus the note that 'none' for texture_model equals should_texture false and the worked example. It does not cover the many secondary toggles (decimation_mode, topology, auto_size), leaving those to the schema.

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 ('Generate a 3D model from one image') and immediately frames the scope — one image, textured by default. It also names the sibling it is not (meshy_multi_image_to_3d for 2–4 photos, meshy_text_to_3d implied), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: exactly ONE image source, file_path recommended over image_url, and input_task_id only from a SUCCEEDED single-image task. It then maps project types to model pairings (hero asset, game character, many props, 3D print, drafts), which is concrete when-to-use guidance against alternatives.

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