unwrap_object

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is destructive. The description adds 'safe in background' as an execution detail, but does not disclose what destruction occurs (e.g., overwriting existing UV maps) or any other side effects.

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 two short sentences, immediately stating the core action and method list. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 and annotations provide some context, the tool's destructive nature and 0% parameter schema coverage require a richer description. Missing details include what the `name` parameter does, when to use this tool over UV map management tools, and the exact effects on existing UV maps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It does clarify the `method` parameter by listing allowed values, but it does not explain the `name` parameter (likely the UV map name) or explicitly define `object_name` beyond the context of 'mesh'.

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 clearly states the action 'unwrap mesh' and enumerates the projection methods (SMART/PLANAR/CUBE/SPHERE/CYLINDER), making the tool's function specific. It distinguishes itself from UV map management siblings like add_uv_map by focusing on unwrapping via projection, though it omits the explicit term 'UV'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_uv_map, list_uv_maps, or remove_uv_map. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for appropriate usage.

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