Rebuild an asset's topology, optionally as quads

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses credit spending, async execution with poll steps, and flags the provider task name as unverified. This is valuable transparency that annotations do not provide, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 few sentences, each contributing useful information: credit cost, purpose, rationale, async steps, and a verification note. It is front-loaded with the most critical constraint (credit spend) and avoids redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the operation, cost, async flow, and follow-up steps. It could mention potential error conditions or prerequisites more explicitly, but the assetJobId parameter description in the schema helps fill that 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning—only reiterating the quad default, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Rebuilds' and the resource 'topology of an existing generated asset', distinguishing it from siblings like normalize_mesh or texture_existing_asset. It also explains the rationale for quad output, reinforcing its specific role.

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 context on why quads are preferred but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize_mesh. The async workflow is mentioned, but no exclusion criteria or comparisons are provided, leaving usage decisions partially implicit.

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