production.uv_analyze

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description need only add context. "Bounded tile/material summaries" usefully signals that output is capped rather than exhaustive, and the relationship prerequisite hints at stale-data risk, but neither the consequence of a stale relationship nor any scale/limit detail is spelled out.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But the front-loaded portion is an unpunctuated slash-separated keyword mass that is harder to parse than it needs to be, and the prerequisite is buried at the end.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not owed. Still, for a tool with a free-form options object and two near-identical UV siblings, the description leaves an agent without enough to choose this tool confidently or to fill in options.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden. It gives partial meaning for 'relationship' (an explicit high/low pairing that must be current) but says nothing at all about the 'options' object, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 names the resource (UV layers, islands, overlap, flips, degenerates, UDIM, stretch, padding, density) but does so as a noun-phrase keyword list without a verb, so 'analyze' is inferred from the tool name only. It overlaps noticeably with siblings uv_validate and uv_analyze_texel_density (density is listed here too) and gives no basis for telling them apart.

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?

"Requires current explicit high/low relationship" supplies one real precondition, which is more than nothing. However it never says when to reach for this tool instead of uv_validate or uv_analyze_texel_density, and no exclusions or failure conditions are given.

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