stylize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's an asynchronous operation (not immediate), requires polling via 'task_status', and final retrieval via 'download_model'. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers the essential workflow.

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 with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence explains the async workflow and next steps. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the async nature and workflow adequately for a transformation tool. Could be slightly more complete by mentioning error cases or prerequisites, but overall sufficient.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the style options in parentheses, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter meaning or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Apply') and resource ('a stylization effect to a generated 3D model'), with specific style options listed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'retopologize' or 'convert_format' by focusing on artistic stylization rather than technical conversion or optimization.

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 this is an async operation and provides clear next steps (use 'task_status' to poll, then 'download_model'), which helps the agent understand the workflow. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retopologize' or 'convert_format' for different types of model transformations.

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