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 model has built-in materials, normalized size (making re-scaling useful), and that the tool imports the asset into Blender. It also notes the return message, providing useful behavioral context beyond just 'generate'.

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 with a clear first sentence for purpose, followed by behavioral notes and parameter details. It's slightly verbose but every sentence contributes useful information, and the parameter list is organized for readability.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it does, parameters and their conditions, behavioral traits, and return value. It does not mention async behavior or how to poll status, which might be relevant given sibling tools, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a competent agent.

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 description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: absolute paths, list wrapping, mode requirements, mutual exclusivity, and bbox_condition format (list of 3 ints controlling ratio). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 generates a 3D asset from images using Hyper3D and imports it into Blender. This specific verb+resource+action distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_hyper3d_model_via_text.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use input_image_paths vs input_image_urls based on Hyper3D Rodin's mode, and that only one should be given at a time. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over text-based generation or mention exclusions.

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