blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Apply' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe what happens to existing UV maps, whether the operation is destructive, permission requirements, or error conditions. The return format is mentioned but without behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains parameters well and mentions the return format, but lacks behavioral context about what the operation actually does (e.g., replaces existing UVs, creates new UV layer). The existence of an output schema helps, but more operational detail would be beneficial.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining both parameters. It clarifies 'object_name' refers to a mesh object and 'projection' accepts specific enum values (CUBE, CYLINDER, SPHERE) that aren't documented in the schema. This compensates well for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the action ('Apply a projection-based UV mapping') and the target resource ('to a mesh object'), providing specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'smart_uv_project' or 'uv_unwrap' which also handle UV mapping operations.

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 like 'smart_uv_project' or 'uv_unwrap' (both sibling UV tools). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other UV methods might be more appropriate.

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