import_generated_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states what the tool does at a high level and does not mention side effects, requirements, mode behavior, or what happens if both task_uuid and request_id are provided or neither is. This is a meaningful gap for an import operation.

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, short sentence that is immediately understandable and contains no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 the presence of a Hunyuan import sibling and two mode-specific parameters with no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It lacks context about when importing is appropriate, how the mode parameters relate to the workflow, and what a successful import implies for the scene.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline expectation. The mode-specific hints in the schema are the main semantic content.

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 ('Import') and a specific resource ('asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'import_generated_asset_hunyuan' at least by source. It does not explain what the import does in the scene beyond the name, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like generating a model, polling status, or importing a Hunyuan asset. The description implies it should be used after a Hyper3D generation completes, but that is not explicit, and mode-related selection criteria are left entirely to the parameter descriptions.

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