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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool downloads and imports, implying mutation/write operations, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, file system impacts, or what 'import into Blender' entails (e.g., whether it opens a new file or modifies current scene).

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' statement could be integrated more smoothly. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context about what the import actually does in Blender, error conditions, or output details beyond success/failure message. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 meaning for all 4 parameters: asset_id identifies the asset, asset_type categorizes it, resolution specifies download quality, and file_format offers optional format choices with examples. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Download and import'), target resource ('Polyhaven asset'), and destination ('into Blender'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings 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 want to obtain a Polyhaven asset for Blender, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'download_sketchfab_model' or 'import_generated_asset'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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