uv_project_from_view

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states the operation but fails to mention any side effects, such as overwriting existing UVs, requiring a valid object, or whether it works on selected faces or the whole mesh. It also doesn't disclose if the operation is destructive or reversible, which is critical for a projection tool.

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: a one-sentence purpose plus a compact args list. It is front-loaded with the action. There is no fluff, but it is minimal to the point of being sparse. Structure is clear and efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits prerequisites (object must exist, must have UVs), side effects (overwrites existing UVs), and whether it applies to the whole mesh or active selection. An agent cannot fully anticipate the outcome of calling this tool correctly.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It provides one-line definitions: 'object_name: Target object.', 'aspect_ratio: [width, height] aspect ratio.', 'direction: VIEW, TOP, FRONT, or SIDE.' This gives basic meaning but leaves ambiguity (e.g., what does aspect_ratio null mean? What does VIEW direction imply? Does aspect_ratio need specific units?). It adds some value over the schema but lacks depth.

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 the action clearly: 'Project UVs from the current view or a specific direction.' It names the resource (UVs) and the method (projection from view/direction). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like uv_unwrap or uv_smart_project, the purpose is unambiguous and specific enough to be understood on its own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related UV tools (e.g., uv_smart_project, uv_unwrap). The description only explains what it does, not the conditions under which it should be preferred. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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