manage_uv_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the 8-map limit, that ADD makes the new map active, that UV tools edit the active map, that materials/export use the render map, and the return shape. It does not explain failure behavior when the limit is reached or what happens when removing the active/render map, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 definition is front-loaded with the operations and key distinction, then adds a compact common-use example and clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler.

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 five-parameter, multi-action mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers actions, parameter roles, map limits, active/render semantics, and return structure. The main gaps are edge-case behavior such as exceeding eight maps, removing an active/render map, or name collisions on RENAME.

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: every parameter is explained, each action enum value is given operational meaning, and action-specific parameters are scoped (uv_map as target or new name, new_name only for RENAME, copy_active only for ADD). Defaults are present in the schema, so omitting them from the prose is acceptable.

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 first sentence names a specific resource (UV maps) and enumerates the operations: list, add, remove, rename, set active, set render. It also distinguishes the active-vs-render-map roles, which differentiates this tool from UV-related siblings like smart_uv_project and pack_uv_islands.

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 gives a concrete workflow: add a Lightmap map, then run smart_uv_project or pack_uv_islands on it while textures use the first map. It also explains that UV tools operate on the active map while materials/export use the render map. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or direct alternative tool routing beyond the UV workflow example.

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