blender_import_asset

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: URL downloads first, respects a size cap, and imports objects as editable ordinary objects. It also hints at the workflow (validate, modify, export). It does not contradict annotations.

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 tight sentences front-load the purpose and key constraints (download first, size cap, editable objects) before listing formats. No fluff or repetition.

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 7 parameters and nested options, the description covers the core purpose and some behavior but omits return format, error handling, and the fact that it operates on the current Blender scene (though that may be implicit for all blender_* tools). It also does not mention how into_collection affects the scene. Given the complexity, it could be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 71%, so most parameters are already documented (url, path, import_options, into_collection, response_format). The description adds minimal value: it mentions URL vs path and the size cap (which relates to max_bytes), but does not explain timeout, max_bytes units, or import_options structure beyond what the schema provides. It does not compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 3D model') and resource ('from a URL or a local file'), and immediately adds that it produces 'separate editable objects' – a clear distinction from mere downloading or library fetch. It also enumerates supported formats, which distinguishes it from generic import tools.

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 its siblings (e.g., blender_import_model, blender_download, blender_fetch_asset). It does not state conditions like 'use this for importing external files' or mention any alternatives. This leaves the agent to infer the right context.

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