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. It mentions 'download' and 'import' implying network usage and Blender scene modification, but it does not disclose specific behaviors such as whether the import is additive, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The only additional detail is that it returns a success/failure message, which is minimal.

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 concise with a clear one-line purpose followed by a structured parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words and the structure makes the information easy to parse. Slight redundancy exists with the schema property names, but the added descriptions justify the length.

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 purpose, parameters, and return value, which is adequate for a moderately simple download tool. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., Blender must be open, network availability), how this relates to search_polyhaven_assets, and specific error behavior. It is not incomplete enough to be confusing, but there are 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?

The schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the tool description provides a one-line explanation for each parameter, including examples for asset_type (hdris, textures, models), resolution (1k, 2k, 4k), and file_format (hdr, exr, jpg, png, gltf, fbx). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles, helping an agent understand parameter usage.

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 tool downloads and imports a Polyhaven asset into Blender, with a specific verb ('Download and import') and resource ('Polyhaven asset'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_sketchfab_model by naming Polyhaven.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: it should be used when a Polyhaven asset is needed. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_polyhaven_assets or download_sketchfab_model, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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