set_texel_density

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that islands are scaled about their shared centre and may spill outside the 0-1 square, and it names the exact follow-up call needed to bring them back. It also states the valid density range and the return shape.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact behavioral note, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by adding operational detail or parameter meaning.

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 UV-scaling mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: the purpose, the side effect on islands, the required follow-up packing call, all parameter semantics, and the return value. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 documents all three parameters meaningfully: object_name is a mesh object with a UV map, density is target pixels per metre above 0 and up to 100000, and texture_size is the texture width in pixels the UVs are meant for. It adds units, constraints, and domain context beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Scale an object's UVs to hit a target texel density.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_texel_density (read) and pack_uv_islands (packing), and an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: islands may spill outside the 0-1 square, so 'pack afterwards with pack_uv_islands(scale=False)' to fix that without undoing the scaling. It does not explicitly contrast with get_texel_density or uv_unwrap, but the context is still strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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