bb_auto_uvSet automatic UV mapping mode on cubes to faces, relative, box, or off, controlling how textures map per face or box for modeling workflows.
Set automatic UV mode on cubes: mode "faces" (autouv 1, per-face), "relative" (autouv 2), "box" (box_uv), or "off".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | faces | |
| targets | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mode mapping but not whether existing UVs are overwritten, whether the operation is undoable (a bb_undo sibling exists), or what happens to targets not eligible for auto-UV. The title 'Regenerate UVs' also conflicts mildly with the description's 'Set ... mode' framing.
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?
One compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the mode options enumerated with their internal mappings. No filler, though the semicolon-dense format slightly hurts scanability.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented required 'targets' object, and no mention of reversibility or side effects. The description covers only the mode vocabulary, not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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% and there is no enum on mode, so the description's enumeration of faces/relative/box/off with their underlying autouv/box_uv values is genuinely valuable. However, the required 'targets' parameter is an empty, undocumented object that the description never explains, leaving a critical gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Set automatic UV mode on cubes') that is distinguishable from siblings such as bb_set_face_uv (manual per-face UV) and bb_generate_texture. It does not explicitly name a sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus bb_set_face_uv or other UV tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. selection state, cube-only scope). The mode list describes options but not when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.