generate_hyper3d_model_via_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the asset has built-in materials, a normalized size (suggesting re-scaling), and that the tool imports the asset into Blender. It also notes the return message indicating success/failure. This is substantial behavioral information, though it omits potential async behavior or failure modes.

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 well-organized with a parameter list and concise sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with essential details. A few extra details (e.g., 'built-in materials') are useful, and nothing feels redundant.

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 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers most critical aspects (modes, bbox, materials, size, return message). However, it omits the user_prompt parameter, doesn't clarify whether the mode refers to environment settings, and lacks details on asynchronous behavior or potential side effects in Blender beyond import.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that input_image_paths/input_image_urls must be lists, which one to use depending on mode, and that bbox_condition must be a list of three ints controlling L/W/H. However, it fails to mention the user_prompt parameter present in the schema, which is a notable gap.

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 generates a 3D asset from images using Hyper3D and imports it into Blender. This specific verb+resource+outcome distinguishes it from siblings like generate_hyper3d_model_via_text (which uses text) and import_generated_asset (which likely only imports, not generates).

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 explains the mode-dependent requirement for input_image_paths vs input_image_urls, and instructs to use only one at a time. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use generate_hyper3d_model_via_text for text-based generation'. Still, the guidance is solid enough for correct parameter selection.

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