blender_fix_uv_mapping

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by noting that the tool reports what changed per object, but it does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing UV maps or how the repair interacts with materials/textures.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the reporting behavior is stated succinctly. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description communicates the core operation and the reporting behavior clearly. The schema covers object targeting and response format, so the agent has enough to call it correctly, though more detail about the repair methods and their effects would improve completeness.

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?

The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The schema itself documents objects and response_format reasonably, and method has a minimal description, but margin and angle_limit_deg rely on their self-explanatory names. With 60% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate heavily, but it also contributes nothing.

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 states a specific verb ('Repair'), a clear resource ('UVs on existing meshes'), and the exact problem scope ('stretched, overlapping or out-of-range'). It also promises a distinct outcome ('report what changed per object'), which clearly separates it from generic UV tools like blender_auto_uv 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 when to use the tool: when UVs are stretched, overlapping, or out-of-range on existing meshes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as blender_auto_uv for creating fresh UVs, leaving some routing to inference.

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