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. It mentions that the tool imports an asset and returns success status, but lacks details on behavioral traits like required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what 'import' entails (e.g., adding to a scene, file storage). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are bulleted for clarity, and the warning about using only one ID is concise. However, the final sentence 'Return if the asset has been imported successfully' is slightly redundant with the purpose, and the structure could be more streamlined by integrating the return statement earlier.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter usage, and return indication, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases, what 'import' means operationally, or output format. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'name' is explained as 'The name of the object in scene', and it clarifies that 'task_uuid' and 'request_id' correspond to different Hyper3D Rodin modes (MAIN_SITE vs. FAL_AI), with a rule to use only one. This provides crucial semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail formats or constraints for the 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 action ('Import') and the resource ('asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it handles assets from Hyper3D Rodin generation tasks, unlike download tools for external sources. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'set_texture' or 'execute_blender_code', preventing a perfect score.

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 specifies to use only one of {task_uuid, request_id} based on the Hyper3D Rodin Mode, offering guidance on parameter selection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as distinguishing from 'download_polyhaven_asset' for external assets.

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