manage_asset_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details operation-specific behavior: HDRIs set as world env, textures/models via files API bundles, Sketchfab requires token and downloadable model. This provides useful context beyond the bare minimum, though it lacks failure modes or rate limits.

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 relatively concise, starting with a clear purpose line and listing operations. However, the list could be better formatted (e.g., proper bullet points) and is somewhat dense in a single paragraph.

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 the complexity (13 params, no required ones) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main operations and their effects. It omits error handling and examples, but is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline. The description adds behavioral context for operations (e.g., polyhaven_import specifics) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already clear.

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 'PORTMANTEAU: Poly Haven + Sketchfab asset discovery and import (fleet subprocess Blender)', which clearly states the tool's purpose and scope. It lists all operations, differentiating from sibling tools that focus on internal Blender tasks (e.g., blender_materials, blender_animation).

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?

The description implicitly suggests usage for external asset discovery and import, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., blender_import for local files). No direct comparison or exclusions are provided.

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