import_generated_asset_hunyuan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the timing prerequisite and the return behavior ('Return if the asset has been imported successfully'), and the mutation is implied by 'import'. However, it does not mention failure modes, whether an existing object with the same name is overwritten, or any side effects on the current scene.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clear parameter list and return statement. Every sentence contributes; the only minor issue is slight redundancy between 'after the generation task is completed' and the parameter note about the generate step, but overall it is well-structured.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, timing, and return value. It is missing explicit edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid zip_file_url, generation not finished, duplicate names) and does not clarify the exact return format, leaving moderate gaps for an agent.

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%, so the description must provide meaning for both parameters, and it does: 'name' is clarified as the scene object name, and 'zip_file_url' is explicitly tied to the generate model step. This adds practical semantics beyond the bare schema titles, though the URL format could be more precise.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') and names the exact resource ('asset generated by Hunyuan3D after the generation task is completed'), which clearly distinguishes it from other generation/import tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'import_generated_asset', leaving some ambiguity about which import variant to use.

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 states a clear precondition ('after the generation task is completed') and references the 'generate model step' for obtaining zip_file_url, which gives an agent a concrete workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but for a focused import tool this is adequate context.

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