smart_segment

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful behavior the annotations do not: it spends credits (85 for image, 55 for mesh), is asynchronous, returns immediately with a task_id, and requires a follow-up wait_for_task call.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the primary action plus its cost consequence are front-loaded before the async follow-up instruction. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, the description does not need to explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the async handoff to wait_for_task. Coverage is good for a 5-parameter mutation tool; only the relationship to the segment_mesh sibling is left unstated.

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 every parameter, including the enum values and the transform array, is already documented in the schema. The description restates the seg_type cost split and the hint concept but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 ("Segment an object") plus the guiding mechanism (text hint) and the two supported input types, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling segment_mesh, which an agent must otherwise infer from the name alone.

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 explicit workflow guidance: the call creates a Tripo task, returns a task_id immediately, and the agent should then call wait_for_task. It also surfaces the cost tradeoff that selects image vs model input. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over segment_mesh or the other generation siblings.

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