download_polyhaven_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Returns a message indicating success or failure,' but omits side effects like scene modifications, file storage locations, network dependencies, or what happens on missing assets. The telemetry note about user_prompt is minor transparency but not behavioral.

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 and well-structured: a single purpose sentence, a bulleted parameter list, and a one-line return note. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the tool's basic purpose, parameters, and return behavior, but given that there are no annotations and no output schema, it misses critical context: when to use vs. alternatives, side effects on the Blender scene, error scenarios, and download/import details. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter with examples: asset_type lists 'hdris, textures, models', resolution gives '1k, 2k, 4k', and file_format provides type-specific examples. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't enumerate all possible values.

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 opens with 'Download and import a Polyhaven asset into Blender,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like download_sketchfab_model or import_generated_asset. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it should be used after searching for a Polyhaven asset, nor does it contrast with Sketchfab or generated model tools. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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