smart_uv_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the unwrapping method and return type but omits side effects (e.g., UV layer creation/modification), failure conditions (e.g., non-mesh objects), or requirements beyond object name. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 structured with a summary, one-line elaboration, Args block, and Returns. It is efficient and front-loaded. Minor redundancy: 'Apply Smart UV Project to a mesh object' mirrors the tool name, but overall no wasted words.

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 an output schema exists (though not detailed), the description covers basic action, parameters, and return. However, lacking usage guidelines and behavioral transparency (e.g., side effects, failure modes) leaves gaps. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with 4 parameters and a default-based operation.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter: object_name (mesh object), angle_limit (splitting faces, 0-89?), island_margin (0-1), area_weight (0-1). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles/types, though ranges are implied but not stated explicitly.

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 'Apply Smart UV Project to a mesh object' and 'Automatically unwraps the mesh using angle-based projection,' which is a specific, distinct action. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'uv_unwrap' (standard unwrap) and 'pack_uv_islands' (packing) by specifying the Smart UV Project method.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'uv_unwrap' or 'set_uv_projection'. The description assumes the user knows to choose Smart UV Project for angle-based unwrapping, but lacks context on prerequisites or comparative scenarios.

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