Detail and texture a 3D model

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses that the tool regenerates geometry, costs cubes, runs on GPU, and uses a reference image via prompt or ID. It mentions time expectations and that it is not free. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is destructive or idempotent, or what happens to the original model, which could affect agent decision-making.

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 single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then provides cost, time, and usage guidance. It is efficient but could be improved by listing parameters or using bullet points for clarity. No wasted sentences, but information density is high.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a new model ID or job ID?), how the 'wait' parameter works, or the meaning of most parameters. The agent lacks critical information to invoke the tool correctly without external help.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only two parameters (prompt and reference_image_id) out of eleven. Critical parameters like texture_size, coherence_level, decimation_target, preserve_parts, and dest are not mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or impact.

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 turns a rough model into a high-resolution mesh with PBR texture. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'thrixel_reduce_triangles' by explicitly stating it is not for reducing triangles, and mentions it is the step that finalizes a blockout. This provides specific verb+resource and differentiates from alternatives.

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 states when to use this tool (after an Architect blockout) and when not to (for reducing triangle count). It names an alternative tool (thrixel_reduce_triangles) and provides key decision factors like cost (40 cubes) and runtime (a couple of minutes). This gives clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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