import_generated_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool imports assets and returns success status, it lacks important behavioral details: what permissions are required, whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what happens if the import fails, if there are rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool that presumably modifies a scene, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then lists parameters with clear explanations, includes a critical usage rule, and ends with the return statement. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 complexity (post-generation import operation with mode-specific parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the parameters well and gives usage context, but lacks behavioral details about permissions, error handling, and return format. For a tool that likely modifies a scene, more transparency about its effects would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It does this effectively by explaining all three parameters: 'name' (object name in scene), 'task_uuid' (for MAIN_SITE mode), and 'request_id' (for FAL_AI mode). It also clarifies the exclusive relationship between task_uuid and request_id. The only gap is not explaining the format/constraints of these parameters.

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 purpose: 'Import the asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin after the generation task is completed.' It specifies the verb ('Import'), resource ('asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin'), and timing ('after the generation task is completed'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'import_generated_asset_hunyuan', which appears to serve a similar purpose for a different system.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: after a Hyper3D Rodin generation task is completed. It also includes a critical usage rule: 'Only give one of {task_uuid, request_id} based on the Hyper3D Rodin Mode!' This helps distinguish between two possible parameter scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'import_generated_asset_hunyuan'.

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