texel_density

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

The description only restates the action ('rescale UV') and provides no additional behavioral context. The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, telling the agent the operation is destructive, but the description does not elaborate on what exactly gets modified or whether the change is reversible.

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 one short sentence, which is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and a specific domain concept (texel density). It is concise but at the expense of necessary information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the lack of parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not mention whether the object needs an existing UV map, the units of density, or the effects of the operation on the object's UV layout.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'density' or 'object_name' parameters. The meaning of 'texel density' and how the density parameter influences the operation is completely unexplained.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Skala ulang UV' (rescale UV), indicating this tool rescales UV coordinates. It is likely distinguishable from sibling tools like add_uv_map or unwrap_object, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having a UV map, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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