create_multi_image_to_3d_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait (should_texture=false yields a mesh only), but never says this is an asynchronous task creation that returns a handle requiring retrieve_/stream_/list_ calls, nor mentions cost, credit consumption, or what happens on failure.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, then the remaining sentences are terse value enumerations with no filler. It reads as a compact parameter reference, which suits a 14-parameter tool, though the tail can feel like a dump.

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 14-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits half the parameters and says nothing about the async task lifecycle an agent must handle after calling. What is present is accurate, but the definition is not complete enough to call the tool correctly without opening the schema and guessing.

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 0% and the schema declares no enums, so the description's enumerated values for ai_model, topology, symmetry_mode, pose_mode, origin_at, and the image URL constraints are genuinely valuable. However, 7 of 14 parameters (auto_size, enable_pbr, should_remesh, target_formats, texture_prompt, texture_image_url, target_polycount) get no mention at all, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a 3D model from 1–4 input images.' The 1–4 image range implicitly differentiates it from the single-image sibling, but the description never names create_image_to_3d_task or create_text_to_3d_task, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by '1–4 input images' — an agent can infer this is the multi-image variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against the many sibling creation tools (single-image, text-to-3D, remesh).

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