blender_download_textures

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description doesn't contradict them; it explains the side effect of wiring results onto objects via apply_to. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as file downloads, material creation, network dependence, or licensing/rate limits, which are material to such a 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?

Two sentences, all informative; the core action is front-loaded and the apply_to tip earns its place. No waste.

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 explains the core search-and-download function and the apply_to option, which is enough for a rough call. But with no output schema, it omits return/response behavior (markdown vs json) and doesn't clarify what 'download' produces (files, materials, nodes), leaving gaps for an agent deciding on parameters and handling results.

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 80% schema coverage, the schema already documents query, library, apply_to, and response_format. The description adds only the 'wire the result onto objects' nuance for apply_to, and nothing about limit or library/default behavior, so it adds minimal value 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?

States a specific action: search a free PBR texture library and download matching maps. It clearly identifies the resource (PBR texture library) and outcome (downloaded maps), and also notes the apply_to behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like blender_generate_texture or blender_load_image_texture, so an agent must infer its niche from 'free' and 'download'.

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?

Gives a clear implied scenario (wanting real-world PBR textures from a free library) and includes a targeted instruction for apply_to. But it never names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., when you need procedural generation or existing images), so routing is left to inference.

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