import_generated_asset

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 that it returns a success indicator ('Return if the asset has been imported successfully') and enforces a parameter exclusivity constraint. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., scene modifications), failure modes, or necessary preconditions, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation-like operation.

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, structured with a parameters list and a note on exclusivity. Every sentence provides value: purpose, parameter explanations, and usage constraint. No 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: target resource, when to use, parameter semantics, and return status. It could be more explicit about prerequisites (e.g., an active scene) but is sufficiently complete 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 compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains 'name' as the object name in scene, and crucially distinguishes 'task_uuid' (for MAIN_SITE mode) from 'request_id' (for FAL_AI mode), including the conditional rule that only one should be provided. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'Import' and the resource 'asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin after the generation task is completed'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'import_generated_asset_hunyuan' by specifying 'Hyper3D Rodin', 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 explains when to use the tool ('after the generation task is completed') and provides explicit usage guidance on parameter selection: 'Only give one of {task_uuid, request_id} based on the Hyper3D Rodin Mode!'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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