asset.polypizza_download

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool is gated, requires local user approval, forbids the client from approving its own request, and retries with the same request id after approval. This is valuable, non-obvious information that helps an agent orchestrate the call correctly.

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 reasonably compact, but the opening phrase 'PartMe Blender Harness command `asset.polypizza_download`' largely restates the tool name and adds little. The approval workflow is front-loaded and clear, but the generic final sentence about requirements adds limited value.

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 gated, destructive download operation with five parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits what the tool actually does, where the asset comes from, what modelId refers to, and what the expected scene revision means. The approval and retry mechanics are covered, but the core operational context is missing.

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 coverage is 60%, leaving modelId and _expectedSceneRevision undocumented. The description does not explain what modelId should contain or how _expectedSceneRevision relates to the download. It mentions retrying the same request id, which lightly reinforces _requestId, but it does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 never states that this tool downloads a PolyPizza asset; it only repeats the command name and explains the approval flow. The actual behavior must be inferred entirely from the tool's name, making this closer to a tautology than a functional explanation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related siblings like blender_asset_fetch_url, blender_asset_fetch_generated, or blender_asset_import_file. The approval and retry notes are operational context, but they do not help an agent decide between this tool and alternatives.

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