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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns whether the import was successful, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, failure modes, or whether the import modifies scene state beyond adding an object. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 and well-structured, using a brief introductory sentence followed by a clear bulleted parameter list. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and parameters, but lacks important context given there is no output schema and no annotations. It does not clarify the return format beyond 'if imported successfully', nor does it mention error handling, permissions, or dependencies on a previous generation task. This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps.

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 provides zero description coverage, but the tool description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning: 'name' is the scene object name and 'zip_file_url' is explicitly tied to the output of the generation step. This adds critical context that the schema lacks, enabling correct parameter usage.

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 a specific action ('Import the asset generated by Hunyuan3D') and resource, and it distinguishes from the sibling import_generated_asset by specifying the Hunyuan3D origin. It also includes a timing constraint ('after the generation task is completed'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 functional context by specifying that this tool is used after the generation task is completed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for Hyper3D assets, use import_generated_asset), leaving some room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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