manage_asset_library

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

The description discloses significant behavior beyond the all-false annotations: it launches subprocess Blender ('fleet subprocess'), downloads and imports assets (HDRIs set as world env, textures/models via files API bundles), and requires tokens for Sketchfab. It doesn't mention scene side effects, but the import behavior is explicitly stated.

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: a one-sentence preamble plus a bulleted list of six operations. Each line delivers a distinct capability or prerequisite (tokens, env vars, import behavior), with zero filler and the core purpose front-loaded.

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?

For a complex 13-parameter, six-operation tool, the description covers the main purpose, operations, prerequisites (tokens, env vars), and import behaviors. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed, but it could still expand on error handling or local repository integration.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds operational context (e.g., asset_id used for both Poly Haven and Sketchfab, downloadable_only filter), but it largely restates schema descriptions rather than providing new syntax or examples.

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 opening line explicitly defines the tool as a composition of Poly Haven and Sketchfab asset discovery/import, then enumerates five concrete operations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_local_models or blender_import.

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 operation list implies strong usage context (search vs import, Poly Haven vs Sketchfab, token requirements), but it never explicitly states when not to use this tool or names alternatives like list_local_models. Clear context, no exclusions.

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