import_generated_asset

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 discloses a prerequisite (after generation task completed), the need to provide exactly one of task_uuid/request_id, and that it returns whether import succeeded. However, it does not describe side effects like scene modification, error handling, or idempotency. There is no contradiction with annotations since none are provided.

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 efficiently structured, front-loading the purpose and then providing a clear parameter breakdown. The warning about mutually exclusive IDs is useful and concise. Though slightly verbose with the line-by-line parameter listing, it remains well-organized and easy to scan.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisites, and return status. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from the Hunyuan import tool, and it does not address error cases or the behavior if the asset already exists. Given the rich sibling context, a cross-reference or additional behavioral notes would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and the conditional usage of task_uuid vs request_id based on mode. It also warns not to provide both, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 tool's function: 'Import the asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin after the generation task is completed.' This specifies the action (import), the resource (Hyper3D Rodin-generated asset), and the timing (after generation). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool import_generated_asset_hunyuan by referring explicitly to Hyper3D Rodin.

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 the tool ('after the generation task is completed') and gives explicit guidance on selecting between task_uuid and request_id based on the Hyper3D Rodin mode ('Only give one of {task_uuid, request_id} based on the Hyper3D Rodin Mode!'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool, such as for Hunyuan-generated assets.

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