import_asset

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation only says the scene gets modified; the description goes considerably further by spelling out per-type effects — glTF import for models, world-environment replacement at *strength* for hdris, and a new material applied to *apply_to* or the active mesh for textures. It still doesn't warn that an existing world environment or material is overwritten, which matters given the destructive flag, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

A front-loaded one-sentence summary followed by a compact parameter paragraph; every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema. Density is high without becoming unreadable.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the branching behavior an agent most needs. The gaps are the undocumented *source* and *resolution* parameters and the absence of any statement about what pre-existing data gets replaced — the one thing the destructive annotation makes most relevant.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the prose carries the full burden and does substantial work: it defines *id*'s provenance and format, enumerates the meaningful *asset_type* values (models/hdris/textures) with their differing effects, explains *strength*, *apply_to* (including the active-mesh fallback), and the >0 semantics of *target_size*. Two of the seven parameters — *source* and *resolution* — are never mentioned, and no defaults are restated, so it is strong but incomplete.

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 states a specific compound verb and resource — download a Poly Haven asset and import it into the connected Blender scene — and immediately ties it to the search_assets sibling as the producer of the *id* it consumes. That makes the tool's role in the workflow unambiguous without opening any schema.

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?

It establishes clear context: call this after search_assets, passing the id that tool returned (e.g. ArmChair_01). It does not state exclusions or when to prefer a lower-level alternative such as execute_blender_code, but the prerequisite chain is explicit enough to route an agent correctly.

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