uv_unwrap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and parameter inputs; it does not mention whether existing UVs are overwritten, whether the tool requires an active mesh selection, what happens when no faces are selected, or how the method choice affects the result.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition. The Args section is compact, but the extreme brevity does sacrifice important contextual information.

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 two parameters, the description is too thin. It provides the basic call shape but omits selection prerequisites, method selection guidance, and differentiation from multiple UV-related sibling tools, making it insufficient for reliable correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful valid values for method ('ANGLE_BASED or CONFORMAL'), which is useful, but object_name is only described as 'Target object', adding little beyond the schema. The description does not explain how to choose between the two methods.

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 clearly states the operation: 'UV unwrap selected faces', naming the target object and method. It is distinguishable from most siblings by the explicit 'selected faces' scope, though it does not directly contrast with UV-related tools like uv_smart_project or uv_project_from_view.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uv_smart_project, uv_project_from_view, or uv_pack_islands. The phrase 'selected faces' implies a prerequisite (faces must be selected first), but this is never made explicit, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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