generate_mesh_uvs

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it overwrites the channel, projects down mesh-local Z at 1 unit/cm (not fitted to 0-1), adds a missing channel first while preserving higher channels like lightmap UV1, validates errors before mutating, returns uvs_generated=false on failure, runs in an editor transaction and saves nothing.

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?

Front-loads the action and its physical meaning, then layers edge cases, then alternatives, closing with a compact return block. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the full return shape (actor_name, uv_channel, uv_channel_count, triangle_count, vertex_count, uvs_generated). Combined with error semantics, idempotency, transaction behavior and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; however the description adds real semantics for uv_channel beyond the schema's '0 to 7, default 0' — the >=8 failure boundary, the overwrite-on-write behavior, and the constraint that channel count only grows. It says less about actor_name semantics, keeping this below a 5.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: planar-project UVs across the whole live dynamic mesh of a DynamicMeshActor into a given channel. It immediately distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings (set_mesh_uvs_from_projection and auto_generate_mesh_uvs) by name, so the agent can select it 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 routes the agent: 'For box, cylinder or region projections use set_mesh_uvs_from_projection; for a real unwrap, auto_generate_mesh_uvs.' It also states the exploratory preconditions (channel >= 8 or an empty mesh is an error), giving both when-to-use and when-not.

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