import_generated_asset

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the import action, required parameters, and return value (success boolean). However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., adding to scene), idempotency, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a list format. It is well-structured but could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameter usage with mode distinction, and return value. It could elaborate on what 'successfully' means (e.g., boolean) but is fairly complete for a straightforward import tool.

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% description coverage, so the description compensates fully. It explains that 'name' is the object's scene name, and distinguishes task_uuid (for MAIN_SITE mode) from request_id (for FAL_AI mode), adding essential meaning beyond schema titles.

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 imports an asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin after generation completion. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_* and get_*.

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 explicitly instructs to give only one of task_uuid or request_id based on the Rodin mode, providing clear usage context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is strong and immediate.

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