add_uv_map

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

Annotations declare the tool is mutating and destructive. The description adds no behavioral detail, such as what happens if a UV map with the same name exists, which object is modified, or whether existing UV layers are preserved.

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 a single short sentence with no fluff, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is too terse and omits critical information, so it doesn't fully earn its place.

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 tool has only 2 simple parameters and a destructive hint, so one might argue a short description suffices. However, it omits any mention of the required object parameter or the naming option, and provides no usage context, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%. The description does not mention either parameter (object_name, name). It gives no hint that the UV layer is added to a specific object or that a custom name can be specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Tambah' = add) and resource ('layer UV' to 'mesh'), clearly indicating it creates a UV map. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_uv_map or list_uv_maps, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with unwrap_object.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unwrap_object or add_vertex_color. It simply states the action without context on prerequisites or typical workflows.

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