Generate Motion Clip from Text

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing credit cost (10 prime / 3 swift), advising confirmation before spending, and stating a 3-day retention window. These are exactly the behavioral traits (cost, persistence, format coupling) an agent needs before invoking a non-idempotent, open-world mutation.

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 purpose, then cost, then downstream usage in three tight blocks with a concrete example. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical format caveat is slightly dense and could be trimmed.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still supplies the cost, retention, and downstream-integration context an agent needs. Nothing essential for a correct 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 the schema already documents mode, prompt, duration and response_format, including the prime/FBX vs swift/BVH mapping. The description's FBX/BVH note restates schema content and its example adds only a usage illustration, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 character motion clip') and immediately disambiguates the output type with '(skeleton motion, not a model)', which cleanly separates it from the text-to-3d siblings. An agent can distinguish it from meshy_text_to_3d without opening either 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?

Gives clear downstream routing: apply the result via meshy_animate (motion_task_id) or save it with meshy_download_model, and notes which format each mode yields. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this' or a cost-based alternative comparison, so it stops just short of the top score.

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