download_polyhaven_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that the tool returns a success or failure message, omitting crucial behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the scene destructively, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a download/import tool, this is insufficient.

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 and well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity. Slight improvement could be front-loading more critical behavioral info.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers all parameters and return value, but misses behavioral context (e.g., whether it replaces existing assets, if it requires a Blender scene to be active). The sibling import_generated_asset suggests similar functionality, but no comparison is provided.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage of property descriptions. It provides concrete examples for resolution (1k, 2k, 4k) and file_format (hdr, exr, jpg, etc.), and clarifies asset_type values. However, it does not explain the meaning of asset_id beyond 'ID of the asset', which is minimal.

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 action (download and import) and the resource (Polyhaven asset into Blender). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_sketchfab_model and search_polyhaven_assets by specifying Polyhaven as the source.

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 lists parameters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the name and parameters (e.g., specifying asset_type) but lacks context like prerequisites or when not to use.

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