blender_uv

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

The description adds one behavioral trait beyond the annotations: 'A UV layer is created if missing.' This is useful context. However, it does not disclose whether existing UVs are overwritten, what happens to UV islands during packing, or other side effects. Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so no contradiction exists, but the description could provide more behavioral detail.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the actions. It is efficient with no filler. It could be slightly more structured by separating the action list, but it remains appropriately concise.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the effects of key parameters like margin, distance, or angle_limit_deg, nor what 'report' returns or the behavior of 'weld' and 'scale'. The description provides insufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly without inspecting the schema further.

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 only 40% (4 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not explain any parameters beyond listing the actions, leaving margin, distance, angle_limit_deg, scale_to_bounds, x, and y without semantic explanation. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Unwrapping and UV maintenance' and lists the specific actions it performs (report, smart project, unwrap, pack islands, weld, scale and centre). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, as no other sibling covers UV operations. The addition 'A UV layer is created if missing' further clarifies its role.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for UV unwrapping and maintenance. It implies usage when UV operations are needed, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tool covers the same domain, the lack of exclusions is acceptable.

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