import_generated_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('Return if the asset has been imported successfully') and the mode-specific identifier requirements, but it doesn't cover error handling, idempotency, or side effects on the scene. This is moderate transparency, not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a bulleted parameter list, a usage note, and a return statement. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundant content.

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 tool's dependency on a prior generation step and mode-specific identifiers, the description covers the prerequisites, the identifier selection logic, and the return behavior. It doesn't mention potential failure scenarios, but for a straightforward import tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: name is the object name in scene, task_uuid is for MAIN_SITE, request_id is for FAL_AI, and it specifies that only one of the two should be provided. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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's action: 'Import the asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin after the generation task is completed.' It identifies the specific resource (Hyper3D Rodin assets) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool import_generated_asset_hunyuan by explicitly naming Hyper3D Rodin.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'after the generation task is completed' and instructs to give exactly one of task_uuid or request_id based on the mode. It does not explicitly mention the alternative Hunyuan import tool, but the Hyper3D Rodin label makes the appropriate context clear.

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