blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Pack UV islands') but doesn't clarify if this is a destructive operation (modifies UV layout), what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., changes to texture mapping). The return value is briefly noted but lacks detail on error cases or performance implications.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured breakdown of arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of UV packing (a specialized 3D modeling operation), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates a 'Confirmation dict', the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks context on when to use it, behavioral traits, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'object_name' is explained as 'Name of the mesh object', and 'margin' as 'Margin between packed islands (0.0-1.0)'. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage, providing clear semantics beyond the bare schema. The default value for 'margin' is noted in the schema but not in the description, which is a minor gap.

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 ('Pack UV islands') and goal ('to fit efficiently within the UV space'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'uv_unwrap' or 'smart_uv_project', which are related UV operations but serve different purposes.

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 'uv_unwrap' or 'smart_uv_project' from the sibling list. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., existing UV islands to pack).

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