production.uv_pack

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

With annotations already declaring non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior, the description adds useful traits: deterministic result, one pack per existing tile, preserved topology and semantic tile assignments, and no occupancy search. However, it does not explain what is actually modified, when the proposal becomes a committed change, or what prerequisites exist.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core behavior and add only relevant constraints. There is no filler or repetition.

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 and annotations cover basic safety hints, the description is incomplete for a five-parameter mutation-capable tool with no schema parameter documentation. It fails to clarify the mode/operation workflow, what 'proposal first' means operationally, or how operation_id and relationship affect use.

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% across five parameters, and the description only hints that padding and rotation are configurable, likely within the opaque options object. It provides no meaning for mode, operation, operation_id, or relationship, so the agent cannot reliably interpret the inputs from the description.

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 operation: deterministic shelf packing per existing UV tile with configurable padding and rotation, producing a proposal first. It clearly distinguishes this from occupancy-search packing, but does not explicitly differentiate its role from siblings such as uv_generate or udim_apply_plan.

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 hints at scope with 'proposal first' and 'no endless occupancy search', but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. An agent is left to infer when this should be selected over uv_generate, udim_plan, or udim_apply_plan.

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