import_generated_asset_hunyuan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a prerequisite ('after the generation task is completed') and the source of the URL, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or failure modes. For a simple import tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean bullet list for parameters. Every sentence provides useful information without fluff or redundancy.

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 import tool, the description covers the action, the parameter semantics, and the return condition. It could mention the need to poll for job completion, but the phrase 'after the generation task is completed' implicitly covers this. Overall, it is complete enough given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'name: The name of the object in scene' and 'zip_file_url: The zip_file_url given in the generate model step.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying the role of each parameter and their relationship to the workflow.

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 'Import the asset generated by Hunyuan3D after the generation task is completed,' using a specific verb ('Import'), a specific resource ('asset generated by Hunyuan3D'), and a clear context. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'import_generated_asset' by naming Hunyuan3D in both the tool name and description.

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 implies when to use it: 'after the generation task is completed' and refers to the 'zip_file_url given in the generate model step.' This provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like the generic import_generated_asset or mention any exclusions.

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