spawn_nvidia_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it states robot keys create controllable articulations, assets are 'referenced from verified NVIDIA USD paths,' and spawned assets remain compatible with later transform/clone/delete operations. It does not disclose behavior on path conflicts, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond just 'spawns an asset.'

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: the purpose comes first, followed by a prerequisite, a short behavioral note, then a focused Args list. Every sentence adds information, and there is no redundant fluff.

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?

The description is strong for a moderately complex tool: it covers the prerequisite, current-stage context, asset categories, downstream compatibility, and all core parameters. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Minor gaps include no discussion of how `command_id`/`idempotency_key` affect behavior and no explicit alternative-usage exclusions.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates well for the main parameters: `asset_key` is exact from `list_nvidia_assets`, `prim_path` defaults under `/World/Assets`, `rotation` is in XYZ Euler degrees, and `scale` is a multiplier. It omits `command_id` and `idempotency_key`, which prevents a 5.

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 verb and resource: 'Spawn one catalog asset into the CURRENT USD stage.' It clearly separates this from sibling tools by referencing `list_nvidia_assets`, NVIDIA USD paths, and compatibility with `transform_object`, `clone_object`, and `delete_object`.

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 prerequisite: 'Call `list_nvidia_assets` first to obtain an exact `asset_key`.' However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like `create_object`, `import_urdf`, or `spawn_human`, so the when-to-use guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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