blender_auto_uv

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

With only negative annotations (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), the description adds useful context by explaining automatic projection selection and that the tool reports UV coverage. It does not, however, disclose whether existing UV layers are overwritten or what side effects the unwrap operation has on the mesh.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and output, and the second adds a practical rationale. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description captures the main purpose and a key default behavior, and the schema covers parameters well. However, with no output schema and sparse annotations, the agent would benefit from more detail on return values, prerequisites, or when to use a different UV-related tool. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the behavior of the default `method`: it automatically picks a projection rather than simply using smart_project. This gives practical meaning to one of the key parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Unwrap meshes in one call and report the resulting UV coverage.' This is distinct enough from broad names like blender_uv, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools such as blender_fix_uv_mapping or blender_uv.

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 implies a usage context: automatic projection selection is useful for mixed hard-surface and organic meshes, avoiding hand-picking per object. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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