import_generated_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only says 'Return if the asset has been imported successfully,' lacking details on side effects (e.g., overriding existing objects), prerequisites (must scene be open?), error states, or asynchronous behavior. This is insufficient 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, with a clear first sentence stating purpose followed by a structured parameter list. It wastes no words, though the parameter list could be integrated into a flowing sentence.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics but lacks context on return value structure, error handling, side effects, and whether the import is synchronous. For a low-complexity tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: name defines the scene object name, task_uuid and request_id are explained with their respective modes and source steps. The instruction to only give one is extra guidance beyond the 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 tool imports an asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin after completion. The verb 'import' and resource 'asset generated by Hyper3D Rodin' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_hyper3d* and poll_rodin_job_status.

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 specifies to use after generation completion and gives guidance on parameter choice based on mode. It explicitly instructs to only give one of task_uuid or request_id. However, it doesn't exclude cases like missing prerequisites or compare with the sibling import_generated_asset_hunyuan.

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