generate_hyper3d_model_via_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses useful behavioral traits: the asset has built-in materials, a normalized size (suggesting re-scaling may be needed), and it returns a success/failure message. This goes beyond a bare functional statement.

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 efficiently organized: a clear purpose sentence, two concise behavioral notes, a parameter list with explanations, and a return-value line. Every sentence adds value with no redundant filler.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation needs: what the tool does, parameter constraints, and expected return. It could mention whether the generation is asynchronous, but the success/failure message is sufficient for basic usage.

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 schema provides only types (string, array of numbers), while the description adds essential meaning: text_prompt must be in English, and bbox_condition is optional but must be a list of three floats controlling the Length/Width/Height ratio. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action: 'Generate 3D asset using Hyper3D by giving description of the desired asset, and import the asset into Blender.' This specifies a precise verb, resource, and outcome, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_hyper3d_model_via_images or generate_hunyuan3d_model.

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 context: use this tool when you have a text description to generate a 3D asset and bring it into Blender. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the tool's name and description.

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