text_to_3d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits other behavioral details such as required permissions (if any), potential failure modes, or any side effects beyond the async 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover the core purpose and the essential async workflow. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 complexity (17 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main workflow (async generation). However, it could mention the output (e.g., 'Returns a task ID for polling') or provide a brief example of usage, but the output schema likely covers return values.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond what is in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the 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 action ('Generate a 3D model') and the resource ('from a text prompt'). It also distinguishes itself by noting it's an async operation and points to related tools (task_status, download_model), making its purpose unmistakable even among many siblings.

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 explains the async workflow (poll with task_status and retrieve with download_model), which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like image_to_3d or multiview_to_3d, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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