production.material_validate_uv

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

The description explicitly says apply=true writes only owned candidate materials, which is a mutating operation. The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, directly contradicting the described behavior. The invariance guarantees (original slots, images, UVs, geometry, animation remain unchanged) are useful but cannot offset the core readOnly contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the tool name and core behavior, but the second sentence is a dense, comma-separated list of process prerequisites that is hard to parse. It is not bloated, but the structure could be clearer and some content could be tightened.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description is insufficient for a 7-parameter validation tool with no schema parameter documentation. It omits what UV validation checks are performed, what the options/definition/material parameters mean, and any error or failure conditions. The readOnly contradiction further undermines trust in the definition.

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 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the full burden of explaining parameters. It only clarifies apply=true (write candidate materials) and hints at profile usage, but leaves options, definition, material, material_name, and object_name completely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 that the tool inspects/proposes UV validation by default and writes candidate materials with apply=true, but it never specifies what aspect of UVs is being validated (overlaps, texel density, bounds, etc.). It also fails to distinguish this tool from close siblings like production.uv_validate, production.material_validate_udim, or production.uv_analyze.

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?

It gives some usage context: default inspect/propose, apply=true for writing candidate materials, and a list of prerequisites such as material plan references, explicit channels/profiles, technical QA, and visual review before acceptance. However, it never names an alternative tool or explains when to choose this over sibling validation tools.

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