download_polyhaven_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Download and import') and return value ('message indicating success or failure'), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires internet connectivity, what permissions are needed, if it modifies existing Blender scenes, file size implications, or error handling specifics. The description is minimal beyond the basic 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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted parameter list with concise explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language. The information is front-loaded with the core action.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context for a tool that downloads and imports external assets. It doesn't explain what 'import into Blender' entails (e.g., adds to current scene, creates new objects), performance implications, or error scenarios. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding the full operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters: asset_id (ID of asset), asset_type (type with examples), resolution (download resolution with examples), and file_format (optional format with type-specific examples). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify allowed values or constraints.

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 specific action ('Download and import'), the resource ('a Polyhaven asset'), and the target environment ('into Blender'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'search_polyhaven_assets' (which finds assets) and 'import_generated_asset' (which imports from other sources).

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 implies usage when you need to obtain and use a Polyhaven asset in Blender, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'download_sketchfab_model' or 'import_generated_asset'. It mentions asset types (hdris, textures, models) which helps contextualize, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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