uv_smart_project

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits: it does not say whether the operation overwrites existing UVs, requires specific mesh conditions, or is destructive. The only information is the operation name and parameter meanings.

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 very brief and front-loaded, with a one-sentence overview followed by a structured Args list. It avoids verbosity, but the brevity sacrifices explanatory content, so it is more under-specified than genuinely concise.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It omits what the operation does to the mesh, when to use it, and how the parameters interact, leaving an agent without enough context to reliably select and invoke it.

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 Args section provides basic one-line explanations for each parameter: 'Target mesh object', 'Angle limit in degrees', 'Margin between islands.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which has 0% description coverage, but it does not explain how angle_limit affects the result or what island_margin controls in detail.

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 says 'Smart UV project unwrap' and lists three arguments. This identifies the operation, but it does not explain what Smart UV project unwrapping entails or that it affects a mesh's UV map. The purpose is implied rather than explicitly stated, making it vague compared to a detailed description like 'Unwraps the mesh using Blender's Smart UV Project algorithm'.

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 instead of alternatives such as uv_unwrap, uv_pack_islands, or uv_project_from_view. The description does not state any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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