generate_hyper3d_model_via_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the model has built-in materials, the generated model has a normalized size (implying potential re-scaling is needed), and it imports into Blender. It does not mention error scenarios or side effects beyond a success/failure message, but the core behaviors are covered adequately.

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?

The description is structured with a brief intro sentence followed by bullet-point-like parameter details. Every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, output characteristics, parameter semantics, and usage constraint without fluff. It is compact yet complete.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description states it 'Returns a message indicating success or failure.' It covers the necessary context for a generation tool: input modes, size normalization, and Blender import. It omits details like expected processing time or network requirements (which might be derived from mode), but given the tool's complexity and the rich parameter explanation, it is nearly complete.

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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must explain each. It does so thoroughly: 'input_image_paths' and 'input_image_urls' are described as absolute paths and URLs, with format and mode requirements. 'bbox_condition' is explained as a list of ints of length 3 controlling the Length/Width/Height ratio. While 'user_prompt' is not explicitly described, it is optional and has a default; the description still adds substantial meaning well beyond schema field names.

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 description clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate 3D asset using Hyper3D by giving images of the wanted asset, and import the generated asset into Blender.' It specifies the verb (generate), resource (Hyper3D), and action (import into Blender), and distinguishes itself from the text-based sibling by the input type (images vs. text).

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?

The description explicitly states when to use which input mode: 'Required if Hyper3D Rodin in MAIN_SITE mode' and 'FAL_AI mode', and enforces mutual exclusivity: 'Only one of {input_image_paths, input_image_urls} should be given at a time, depending on the Hyper3D Rodin's current mode.' It also provides the needed condition for bbox_condition. This gives clear and decisive usage guidance.

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