Process Multi-Color 3D Print

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a 10-credit cost, the fact that the artifact arrives slicer-ready, and the brand-specific limitation where certain slicers cannot be auto-detected and the raw 3MF path must be handed to the user.

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 purpose and cost in the first sentence, then moves to a short confirm-list and the download/hand-off step. Every sentence is actionable, though the parameter restatements slightly duplicate the 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 7 all-optional parameters, no output schema, and three enums, the description supplies the missing glue an agent needs: credit cost, the required preconditions to confirm, the follow-up tool call, and the slicer-detection fallback. It stops short of describing pagination or return payload details, but no output schema exists to lean on, so a minor gap remains.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the AMS/MMU meaning of max_colors and the realistic-only constraint on max_depth. The description's parameter notes (max_colors as AMS/MMU capacity, max_depth realistic-only) largely restate what the schema says, adding no new syntax, format, or defaulting guidance.

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 transformation ('turn a textured model into a multi-color 3MF') and names the concrete output artifact plus its readiness state ('opens ready to print in the slicer'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like meshy_convert (generic conversion), meshy_send_to_slicer (delivery), and meshy_retexture.

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 an explicit pre-flight checklist of values to confirm (max_colors, style, printer_brand, max_depth) and a concrete follow-up workflow ('Download with format "3mf", then open it with meshy_send_to_slicer'). It also handles the not-detected slicer case (Flashforge, QIDI, Snapmaker, AnkerMake) with an alternative action. No explicit when-not-to-use case is stated, so it falls just short of a 5.

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