uv_unwrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation nature and the seam prerequisite, which is meaningful behavioral context, but says nothing about what happens without seams, permission requirements, or reversibility/undo behavior for a destructive UV overwrite.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the prerequisite, then Args and Returns in a clean structure. Reasonably sized with little waste, though the Args/Returns labels add slight boilerplate overhead.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return description is unnecessary, and the seam prerequisite is a valuable addition for a mesh operation. Still missing is sibling differentiation from the other UV tools and any note on the destructive nature of overwriting UVs, which for an unannotated mutation tool leaves notable gaps.

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, and it does name and explain both parameters (object_name and method). However, it lists only 'ANGLE_BASED or CONFORMAL' while the schema enum also includes SLIM, a discrepancy that could mislead about available options.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Unwrap a mesh object's UVs using standard unwrap'), which is clearly distinct from generic verbs. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like smart_uv_project, pack_uv_islands, or set_uv_projection, leaving the agent to infer which UV operation to pick.

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 line 'Requires seams to be marked for best results' gives a useful prerequisite, which is real usage guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling UV tools (smart_uv_project, pack_uv_islands), so selection guidance is only implied.

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