Retexture 3D Model

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (openWorld non-idempotent write), so the description's added value is the pricing disclosure (10 credits, 15 at 8K) and the input-combination rejection behavior, both of which are unavailable from structured fields. It does not say what happens to a model's prior textures or whether the source model is replaced, a modest remaining gap.

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 the core action, then the constraint list, then an example call — a sensible order. The indented bullet block and embedded example are slightly verbose for the amount of information conveyed, but every line carries real content.

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 14-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the highest-risk missing piece (style-input exclusivity) and pricing. It stays silent on the two source modes (model_url vs input_task_id), though those are documented per-parameter in the schema.

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; the description earns above that by documenting a cross-parameter constraint the schema cannot express, namely that text_style_prompt, image_style_url and multiview_image_urls are mutually exclusive, and by supplying a concrete 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Apply new AI textures to an existing model'), which cleanly separates it from generation siblings like meshy_text_to_3d or meshy_image_to_3d. An agent can identify the operation without opening 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?

It gives a hard usage rule ('EXACTLY ONE style input', tool rejects combinations) and enumerates the three mutually exclusive alternatives, which is genuinely actionable. It does not however explicitly compare against siblings such as meshy_uv_unwrap or meshy_remesh, so routing between tools is left partly to inference.

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