import_generated_asset_hunyuan

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the prerequisite and that it returns success, but omits details about side effects (e.g., whether it adds to the scene or overwrites existing objects), error conditions if the task isn't complete, and the exact return format. This is minimal transparency for a mutating 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 two sentences plus a parameter list, with the purpose stated first. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundant fluff. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (after generation), the parameters, and the return value ('if the asset has been imported successfully'). It lacks error-handling details but is adequate for basic invocation.

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 description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'name' is the object name in the scene, and 'zip_file_url' is specifically the one from the generate model step. This is valuable because the input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), making the description the sole source of parameter semantics.

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'), a specific resource ('asset generated by Hunyuan3D'), and a timing condition ('after the generation task is completed'). This distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'import_generated_asset' by explicitly naming Hunyuan3D as the source.

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 a clear usage context: it must be used after the generation task is completed, and it references the 'zip_file_url given in the generate model step', linking it to the generate_hunyuan3d_model workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for non-Hunyuan assets) or mention alternative tools by name.

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