wizard_uv_unwrap_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful behaviors such as island packing and auto-fixing flipped/overlapping islands, but it does not state whether existing UV maps are overwritten, whether non-mesh objects are ignored, or what the postconditions are for this scene-wide mutation.

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 and front-loaded: the core batch behavior is stated in the first sentence, followed by a short method summary and a tight Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

The tool is simple, and all parameters are documented, but there are no annotations and no output schema. For a scene-wide mutating operation, the description would benefit from explaining whether existing UVs are replaced or whether this is safe to run on a scene that already has hand-authored UVs.

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, and it does: it explains all three parameters—method values ('smart or lightmap'), margin range ('0-1'), and fix_islands behavior ('Auto-fix flipped and overlapping islands'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 a specific action ('UV unwrap all mesh objects in the scene') and clearly distinguishes this batch tool from per-object siblings like uv_unwrap. It also names the two unwrap methods and the island-packing behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly establishes the batch context: 'all mesh objects in the scene in one call' and 'every mesh.' This implies the tool is for scene-wide unwrapping, contrasting with single-object siblings like uv_unwrap or uv_smart_project, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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