pack_uv_islands

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool packs UV islands but does not specify if it overwrites existing layout, requires the object to have UVs, or note any side effects. The minimal description leaves key behaviors unspecified.

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 succinct with no wasted words. It includes a one-line purpose, clear Args section, and Returns note. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, straightforward operation), the description covers the essential interface. However, it omits context like the need for an existing UV map and lack of effect if no islands exist. The provided output schema helps, but completeness is adequate but not excellent.

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, but the description explains both parameters: object_name (mesh object) and margin (0-1 range). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default, making the tool usable.

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 tool's purpose: packing UV islands efficiently within UV space. It uses a specific verb ('Pack') and resource ('UV islands'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uv_unwrap and smart_uv_project.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uv_unwrap or set_uv_projection. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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