Generate 3D Model from Multiple Images

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral value: credit costs per model, texture defaults, and the constraint that images must not be base64-encoded by the caller. It stops short of describing task lifecycle/async behavior.

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, then cost, then input selection, using clear headers. Efficient, though the cost sentence is dense and the section labels ('IMAGE INPUT') consume space without adding semantics.

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?

For a 29-param tool with full schema coverage, existing output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the one thing the schema can't: how to choose among the three image-input routes and how cost varies. Nothing essential for a correct first call 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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all 29 params. The description adds meaning beyond it by grouping the three input methods as mutually exclusive and flagging that cost scales with model choice, plus a worked example object.

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') and pins the scope precisely: '1–4 views of the same object'. The parenthetical '(better reconstruction)' implicitly contrasts it with the single-image sibling, but it never names meshy_image_to_3d or meshy_text_to_3d, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

'IMAGE INPUT (exactly ONE)' lays out the three mutually exclusive input routes (file_paths / image_urls / input_task_id) with a concrete example, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It falls short of 5 because it never states when to pick this tool over the single-image or text-to-3D siblings.

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