recompute_mesh_uvs

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing failure behavior: a missing channel or empty mesh is an error, and the engine may refuse (e.g. polygroups on a mesh without them), returning recomputed=false and failing the call. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 core action is front-loaded, followed by the failure semantics and a compact return-shape line. Every sentence carries information with no filler, though the return block could be slightly tighter.

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 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape, the failure modes, and the mutation intent. It is largely self-sufficient, with the only gap being guidance on when to select it over sibling UV tools.

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 all four parameters are already documented with defaults and accepted values. The description only alludes to 'the configured flatten method' and 'a UV channel,' adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Recompute UVs on a UV channel using the configured flatten method.' That is unambiguous about the action. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like auto_generate_mesh_uvs, generate_mesh_uvs, or repack_mesh_uvs, which makes selection among the UV family less certain.

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 explains failure conditions (missing channel, empty mesh, engine refusal) but never says when to prefer this tool over the related UV-generation or repacking siblings. An agent gets error semantics but no routing guidance, so it must infer the use case.

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