Generate a 3D model with Replicate

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions slowness (1-5 min), URL expiration (24h), timeout behavior (default 300000 ms, returning prediction ID on timeout), and return type (PredictionResult with local_paths). Annotations already indicate non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description aligns with these without contradiction.

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-structured: purpose first, then behavioral notes, then an Args list, then examples. It front-loads key information. While it is somewhat lengthy, every part serves a purpose, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (PredictionResult with local_paths) and includes examples, parameter details, and behavioral notes. It addresses input requirements, display requirement, and timeout behavior. Minor omissions could include error handling or failure modes, but overall it is fairly comprehensive for a 6-parameter tool.

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 high (83% of parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds additional semantics: for image_url it mentions using replicate_upload_file for local files, for model it gives curated keys and custom format, for timeout it explains what happens if exceeded, and for extra_input it provides an example. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Generate a 3D mesh (GLB/OBJ) from a text prompt or a reference image.' This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like replicate_generate_image or replicate_generate_video.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (for 3D generation) and includes important usage notes such as requiring at least one of prompt or image_url, indicating that 3D generation is slow (1-5 minutes), and a display requirement for download URLs. It also gives examples for different scenarios. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is sufficient.

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