blender_download_animations

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that passing `apply_to` will import and attach the result in the same call, which is useful side-effect information. It does not clarify network/download behavior, what happens on failure, or whether search alone is side-effect-free, but the annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the added context earns a baseline-3 score.

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 only two sentences and wastes no words. The primary search/list purpose is front-loaded, and the optional attachment behavior is presented as a separate, clearly conditional second 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?

The description is adequate for a search/list tool with annotations and good schema coverage, but it lacks some important context: it does not describe the return structure, clarify whether calling without `apply_to` truly avoids all scene changes, or explain the relationship between 'search,' 'download,' and 'import.' These are meaningful gaps for a tool that can perform side effects.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the input schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a small amount of value by explaining the behaviorally important `apply_to` parameter, but does not add meaning for `query`, `source`, `limit`, or `response_format` beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Search downloadable animation sources and list what is available.' It also discloses the optional import/attach behavior via `apply_to`. However, the name suggests 'download' while the description emphasizes 'search/list,' leaving some ambiguity about whether assets are actually downloaded; it also does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like blender_download or blender_download_textures.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_download_textures, blender_download, or blender_create_animation. The only usage direction is 'Pass apply_to to import and attach the result in the same call,' which is parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.

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