uv_unwrap

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

Annotations provide only a title and do not convey read-only or destructive behavior, so the description must carry that burden. It does not disclose that unwrapping likely replaces or modifies the existing UV map, nor does it mention side effects, failure conditions, or whether a new UV layer is created.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the method options. It contains no filler, though it could still benefit from a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the schema plus the method list provide just enough to make a plausible call. However, with no output schema and no behavioral annotations, the description misses important context such as how the result is returned and whether the operation is destructive, making it only minimally complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only adds possible values for the method parameter. It says nothing about object_name or margin, even though those are partially inferable from the schema titles and default value. This is a partial but not complete compensation.

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 identifies the operation as unwrapping UVs and lists the three supported methods: SMART_PROJECT, CUBE_PROJECT, and UNWRAP. This is more than a tautology because it communicates the tool's main function and the available method variants, though it does not differentiate from UV-related siblings like uv_pack_islands or uv_validate.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus UV siblings or alternative approaches. It does not state prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario solely from the tool name.

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