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 need for seams and specifies two unwrap methods, adding useful context. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, error handling, or performance implications, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a prerequisite note, and separate sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return value. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could be more complete by addressing sibling differentiation or advanced usage scenarios.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'object_name' as the mesh object name and 'method' with two enum-like options (ANGLE_BASED or CONFORMAL). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on method differences or object requirements.

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 a mesh object's UVs') and specifies the resource ('mesh object'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'smart_uv_project' or 'set_uv_projection', which appear to be related UV operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 some implied usage guidance by noting 'Requires seams to be marked for best results,' which suggests a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'smart_uv_project' or 'pack_uv_islands' from the sibling list, leaving room for confusion.

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