Generate object variants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the asynchronous nature via '202 {job_id}' and mentions generated assets, but it omits side effects, job lifecycle, authentication requirements, failure behavior, and what 'GENERATED assets' concretely means. These are material gaps for a mutation-style generation tool.

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 notably short and front-loaded with the endpoint and core purpose. The 'GENERATED assets.' fragment is vague and the 'see server docs' is a weak pointer, but overall the description wastes little space and is easy to scan.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% parameter schema coverage, the description leaves important gaps: what scan_id means, how to poll or consume the returned job_id, what generated assets look like, and what body fields are allowed. The endpoint and 202 hint are useful but not sufficient for an agent to invoke this reliably.

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 only 33%, with uid and scan_id having no descriptions. The description clarifies that uid is used in the URL and that body fields pass through, but it never explains scan_id, the relationship between scan_id and uid, or what body fields are expected. It fails to compensate for two undocumented required parameters.

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 identifies the operation: TRELLIS-based variant generation for a completed object, including the exact endpoint POST /objects/<uid>/variants. It distinguishes the tool from scene_object_complete by noting the object must already be completed, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'for a completed object' implies the tool should be used after object completion, and the endpoint/202 response suggests an asynchronous job. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like scene_object_complete or scene_synthetic_views, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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