Reconstruct a 3D asset

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Creates' is consistent. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: it 'SPENDS 3D CREDITS,' is asynchronous (returns a job id), and model URLs expire. This provides important operational traits beyond the structured annotations, though it doesn't detail failure modes or input validation failures.

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 a compact five-sentence paragraph, front-loading the most critical facts: credits, creation, asynchronous behavior, source options, and URL expiration. Each sentence serves a purpose with no fluff or repetition. The structure is efficient and agent-friendly.

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?

While the description covers the main workflow and source options, it omits a key requirement: that `spec` must be provided when not using assetJobId. The schema documents this, but the description does not call it out, which could lead an agent to submit a request without the required `spec` for image/text sources. Given the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 91%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding of the source parameters: it explains that assetJobId uses a job's selected reference image, imagePath must be local png/jpg/webp, imageUrl must be https, and textPrompt skips images. This goes beyond the schema's brief property descriptions and clarifies the one-source requirement.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Creates a textured 3D model.' It identifies the tool as the creation step in a larger workflow, and the title confirms 'Reconstruct a 3D asset.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_asset_job or download_asset by describing the creation action itself, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Provide exactly ONE source' and enumerates the four options (assetJobId, imagePath, imageUrl, textPrompt). It also directs the follow-up actions: poll get_asset_job, then call download_asset. This is clear workflow guidance that distinguishes it from alternative tools and leaves nothing to inference.

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