clear_uv_channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and non-readOnly, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: clearing the highest channel resizes the channel count, and UE 5.8 does not auto-shrink, which is a side effect an agent must know to avoid leaving a stray empty channel.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core action, then the idempotency caveat, then the follow-up requirement, followed by a compact return-field list. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the annotations verbatim.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (including before/after channel counts and a 'saved' flag) and disclosing the resize side effect. The only gap is that it doesn't state whether the asset is saved to disk automatically or what 'saved' means, which is minor.

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 100%, so both parameters (uv_channel 0-based default 0, static_mesh_path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the implicit notion of 'highest' channel via the resize behavior, which is not parameter syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Drop all UVs from one UV channel on a static mesh'), and differentiates itself from the closely related set_num_uv_channels by explaining that the latter is the follow-up for actually removing a channel. An agent can distinguish this from sibling UV tools like copy_mesh_uv_channel or list_uv_channels without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (set_num_uv_channels) and the condition under which a caller needs it, which is exactly the routing guidance a sibling-confused agent needs. It lacks a broader 'when to use this vs. other UV tools' framing, but the one conditional it gives is precise and actionable.

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