BlenderMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It acknowledges the import side effect ('import into Blender') and return type ('message indicating success or failure'), but lacks critical behavioral context: it does not mention network requirements, disk storage of downloaded files, error conditions, or scene modification implications.

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 uses a clean, structured format with clear 'Parameters:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every line serves a purpose—either describing the operation or documenting parameters. No redundant or filler text.

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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations/output schema, the description adequately covers parameter meanings but remains incomplete regarding workflow context (necessity of prior search) and failure modes for an external API-dependent tool.

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 description fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters with concrete examples (e.g., 'hdris, textures, models' for asset_type; conditional file_format mappings). This adds substantial semantic value beyond the naked schema, though it could clarify parameter relationships (required vs optional) explicitly.

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 uses specific verbs ('Download and import') and identifies the exact resource ('Polyhaven asset') and destination ('Blender'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_polyhaven_assets or download_sketchfab_model by specifying the Polyhaven source and dual download-import action.

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?

While the description identifies what the tool does, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., that asset_id must be obtained from search_polyhaven_assets first), or when not to use it (e.g., for Sketchfab models or local files).

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