import_generated_asset

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

With no annotations, the description does the work: it states the prerequisite ('after the generation task is completed'), the mode-dependent parameter behavior, and that it returns a success/failure indicator. However, it does not disclose side effects on the scene, such as whether importing with an existing name replaces or adds an object, nor does it describe error behavior.

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 tightly structured: one sentence of purpose, a bullet-style parameter list, a prominent mutual-exclusivity warning, and a return statement. Every line adds needed operational information with no filler.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the prerequisite, parameter meaning, mode-based selection, and return status. Minor gaps remain: the exact return type is not specified ('Return if...' could be read as 'whether' versus 'the asset'), and behavior when neither/both ID fields are supplied is only partially covered by the instruction.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, but the tool description fully documents all three parameters: name as the scene object name, task_uuid for MAIN_SITE mode, request_id for FAL_AI mode, plus the critical rule that exactly one of the two IDs should be provided based on mode.

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 opens with a specific action and target: 'Import the asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin after the generation task is completed.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling import_generated_asset_hunyuan and from polling/status tools, so an agent knows exactly what this tool is for.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: call after the generation task is completed, and choose task_uuid or request_id according to the Hyper3D Rodin mode (MAIN_SITE vs FAL_AI). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with alternative tools such as import_generated_asset_hunyuan, so it does not quite earn a 5.

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