remove_uv_map

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context: it doesn't specify that the UV map is removed by name, whether the operation is irreversible, or if there are any side effects. It simply restates the action without explaining what gets destroyed beyond the literal 'layer UV'.

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 extremely short ('Hapus layer UV' only), but this is under-specification rather than helpful conciseness. It lacks essential context and could be written in two or three clear sentences without losing brevity. Every word is spent on restating the name, providing no added value.

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?

For a destructive tool with two required parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the removal process, what happens when the UV map doesn't exist, or the expected return value. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly in a workflow.

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%, and the description provides no parameter semantics. The required parameters 'name' and 'object_name' are left entirely unexplained; the description doesn't clarify that 'name' refers to the UV map name and 'object_name' to the owning object. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Hapus layer UV' (Remove UV layer) clearly states the action (remove) and resource (UV layer), which is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like add_uv_map and list_uv_maps. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other 'remove' tools beyond the resource, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives no information about when removing a UV map is appropriate or how it differs from related operations like unwrap_object or add_uv_map.

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