asset.fetch_generated

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a gated risk level, mandatory local user approval, a self-approval prohibition, retry behavior using the same request id, and that per-request argument checks and session policy still apply. This meaningfully enriches the agent's model of how the command behaves during execution.

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 compact at three sentences and front-loads the command identity before packing in risk, approval, and retry details. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the rest is dense and without filler.

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 destructive, user-gated command with 7 parameters and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the approval/retry workflow well but omits the core purpose, the meaning of most parameters, and any guidance for selecting among asset-related siblings. The output schema may cover return values, but an agent still lacks enough context to invoke this correctly.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain providerId, url, filename, _transactionId, _expectedSceneRevision, or _authorization. The only indirect connection is 'same request id', which maps to _requestId, but that is far too thin for a 7-parameter destructive tool.

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 mostly restates the command name ('PartMe Blender Harness command `asset.fetch_generated`') and then moves to risk and approval mechanics. It never states what the tool actually does—what 'generated' means, what it fetches, or what side effect it has in Blender—so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like blender_asset_fetch_url or blender_asset_import_file.

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 useful workflow guidance: local user approval is required, clients cannot self-approve, and the same request id must be retried after approval. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state the conditions or scenarios that select this command over other asset-fetching siblings.

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