convert_model

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the operation spends credits and is asynchronous, returning a task_id immediately rather than the result. It does not detail reversibility or what is destroyed, but the added cost/async disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and formats, followed by the essential cost and follow-up call. Zero filler.

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 19-parameter async tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and the required follow-up step. It could note that conversion may be lossy or how input task IDs versus URLs behave, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 all 19 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'topology, scale, pivot, orientation or textures' loosely categorizes the parameter space but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. 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 (convert) and resource (mesh) plus the exhaustive set of target formats, which no sibling tool offers. An agent can immediately tell this is the format-conversion tool rather than retopologize, texture_model, or complete_mesh.

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 the critical operational context: it creates a Tripo task, spends credits, and returns a task_id that must be followed by wait_for_task. That is clear when/how-to-use guidance for the async workflow. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g., use retopologize if you only need quads), so it stops 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.