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 'Import,' implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior. The description lacks details on what changes occur in the 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and add necessary parameter guidance. No wasted words.

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 (importing an asset) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate for a straightforward import but omits details like post-import behavior, object location, or prerequisites beyond generation completion.

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 adds value by explaining 'name' as the object name in scene and that task_uuid or request_id are alternative identifiers. However, it does not fully clarify the sources (MAIN_SITE vs FAL_AI) or any constraints.

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 ('Hyper3D Rodin generated asset'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_generated_asset_hunyuan. It also specifies the timing ('after generation completes'), providing a precise scope.

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 on when to use ('after generation completes') and how to identify the asset using task_uuid or request_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling tools imply differentiation.

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