geom_uv_unwrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does state that the tool mutates a DynamicMesh actor and returns a structured JSON with UV channel and mesh counts, and it briefly explains the auto_pack behavior. However, it doesn't disclose that generating/repacking likely overwrites existing UV data, whether the operation is reversible, or any required permissions. Some behavior is revealed, but the destructive implication is left implicit.

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 docstring-style format is well structured: a clear one-line purpose, an Args block, Returns, KB reference, and a concrete example. Every section earns its place with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the layout makes it easy for an agent to scan the essential information.

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 description covers all parameters, includes a return summary, points to a KB section, and gives an example. The presence of an output schema means the return details are already structured, so the textual return note is a bonus. Missing elements are usage guidance and prerequisites (e.g., actor must be a DynamicMesh component), which would make it fully complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 must compensate, and it does by listing all six parameters with concise explanations. It adds real meaning for 'method' by enumerating the allowed values ('xatlas', 'patch_builder', 'recompute', or 'layout'), and clarifies the roles of texture_resolution and auto_pack. Some entries (e.g., uv_channel: 'UV channel index') are minimal but still give context beyond the raw schema.

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 opening sentence 'Generate or repack UVs for a DynamicMesh actor' clearly states the specific action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like mesh_audit_uv_channels (which inspects rather than generates) and other geometry operations like geom_remesh. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately front-loaded.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention mesh_audit_uv_channels for inspection or when to prefer layout vs xatlas methods. The example shows a call but doesn't explain selection criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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